*
The economist Thomas Sowell suggested that the question "What happens then?..." is a very useful tool in evaluating policy suggestions. Because many policies may sound good until you consider what new incentives they set-up, and which will unroll after they are implemented.
My equivalent question is "Compared with what?" - which is used to analyse both factual assertions and indeed moral or aesthetic evaluations.
For example, elite people used to say (a lot) that George W Bush was 'dumb' (and before that Ronald Reagan) - meaning low in intelligence and academic ability. But if you ask "dumb, compared with what" you will see that even in a worst case scenario they were in the top quarter of the population (in reality the top five-ten percent for Bush, and higher for Reagan).
As another example, secular Leftists in the UK and elsewhere in the West show by their actions that they regard Israel as an evil country - and indeed they believe that the evil of Israel is the single most important issue in international politics.
To which the best answer is to ask 'Compared with what?'
The relevant comparisons of Israel would, of course, be with a sample specific single other nations, compared nation by nation. Having defined 'evil' with some reasonable precision, we would need to ask how many other historical and present nations of what types and locations are clearly less evil than Israel, and how many (or what type and location) are more evil? So is Israel the most evil country by any reasonable comparison? Obviously not.
*
These example show that secular Leftists are by far those most prone to leave-out comparisons.
So when Leftists assert that (say) universities and colleges are hotbeds of sexism, racism and bullying of those with different sexualities - the proper analytic rejoinder is not denial (because obviously some things of this kind are found everywhere at some level - depending on the criteria for detectability) but to ask: 'Compared with what?'
So for example - racism. Are UK or US colleges racist compared with world historical levels? Obviously not. Compared with non-Western colleges? Obviously not. Compared with historical levels in the UK or US? Obviously not. Or compared with the history of this particular college? Obviously not. Or, is this particular college campus - for instance - aggressing-against, holding-back and generally persecuting women compared with the world outside the college campus - a few hundred yards away? Obviously not.
So why the big focus on racism? The answer will come that so long as there is any racism at all, no matter how comparatively little; then then there is no place for complacency.
But that applies to about 1000 other bad things, so why the big focus on racism?
There is no good answer - but plenty of bad answers to this question - especially the answer that uncontextualized anti-racism has proved itself an insatiable agent of societal and personal destruction. Therefore naturally the secular Left want to prioritise it in all situations, regardless of severity.
*
So, the question "Compared with what?" can serve as a valuable tool in revealing the reality of a situation - especially in revealing the hatred-fuelled destructive impulses which motivate the pseudo-moral campaigns of the secular Left.
Which is why you will never hear Liberals or Leftists using this phrase or applying this analysis.
*
Tuesday 12 August 2014
Monday 11 August 2014
Christianity and beauty - how can we do it? (when the mass media, including the arts, are hostile and corrupt). Easy!
*
I have been listening to Peter Kreeft speaking on some recent YouTube videos - yet again impressed at his excellence as a Christian evangelist and apologist.
One thing he mentions is that one big, but neglected, reason that Christianity lost the culture wars was that the anti-Christians and non-Christians have - for several generations - not been doing beautiful and inspiring work, and most of the best 'art' (in a broad sense of the word) has been anti-Christian and non-Christian.
*
In my view, this is mostly due to the apostasy of the intellectuals - which led them, en masse, first into atheism, then adding to this Leftism; so that nearly all intellectuals including artists (and especially the most influential and powerful) have long been anti-Christian, secular Leftists.
But HERE AND NOW there is an opening for Christians (and those creators on the political Right); and this opening has been opened by the fact that anti-Christian Leftists have all-but abandoned beauty: they do not even try to do beautiful work; and are indeed mainly concerning with doing ugly work.
They first used-to claim that their deliberate ugliness was actually beautiful in some deep way (e.g. Picasso, Schoenberg, Joyce); but in the past couple of generations do not even pretend to be interested in beauty - but only in challenge, subversion, radical politics and the like.
Where there was beauty, there is now a vacuum.
*
Since the Mass Media are nowadays the root and origin of anti-Christian, secular Leftism there is near-zero possibility of any overtly Christian work becoming widely known via any of the mass media.
And when a Christian work does slip under the radar (such as the Harry Potter series of books) then this can be hidden, denied, ridiculed, re-framed - and, as in the case of JK Rowling, the artist can be subverted and turned-against Christianity and absorbed-into mainstream secular Leftism by relentless pressure of bribery, co-option, intimidation and distortion.
*
So:
1. It is very important indeed that Christians become artists and intellectuals and produce beautiful work.
However:
2. This cannot be done via the mass media.
*
The implications are that Christians need to work outwith the mass media, which means via personal contact and small scale production - yet uncompromisingly of the highest possible quality.
1. Christians cannot make a living from intrinsically-Christian arts and intellectual activities - because this must be outwith the mass media therefore small scale therefore non-money-making; so they must be amateurs.
2. Since they are amateurs they need not be concerned by the size of the audience, but only by the quality of their work.
3. Since they are not concerned by the size of the audience, they do not need the mass media - they will work by word of mouth and personal recommendation/ distribution.
*
In sum, this situation is very favourable to sincere Christian creators of beauty; it means that Christian arts are wide-open - and only await creative talent (and NOT money, publicity, marketing, hype, spin or propaganda).
If there is willing talent, and the mass media are not needed - then there are no significant obstacles to be overcome. The Christian artist can simply get on with it: that is, he can get on with making beauty - as best he may.
And if you make beauty; ultimately, the world will beat a path to your door; because beauty is something we all crave, and cannot we cannot help craving.
And beauty will point us at God.
*
I have been listening to Peter Kreeft speaking on some recent YouTube videos - yet again impressed at his excellence as a Christian evangelist and apologist.
One thing he mentions is that one big, but neglected, reason that Christianity lost the culture wars was that the anti-Christians and non-Christians have - for several generations - not been doing beautiful and inspiring work, and most of the best 'art' (in a broad sense of the word) has been anti-Christian and non-Christian.
*
In my view, this is mostly due to the apostasy of the intellectuals - which led them, en masse, first into atheism, then adding to this Leftism; so that nearly all intellectuals including artists (and especially the most influential and powerful) have long been anti-Christian, secular Leftists.
But HERE AND NOW there is an opening for Christians (and those creators on the political Right); and this opening has been opened by the fact that anti-Christian Leftists have all-but abandoned beauty: they do not even try to do beautiful work; and are indeed mainly concerning with doing ugly work.
They first used-to claim that their deliberate ugliness was actually beautiful in some deep way (e.g. Picasso, Schoenberg, Joyce); but in the past couple of generations do not even pretend to be interested in beauty - but only in challenge, subversion, radical politics and the like.
Where there was beauty, there is now a vacuum.
*
Since the Mass Media are nowadays the root and origin of anti-Christian, secular Leftism there is near-zero possibility of any overtly Christian work becoming widely known via any of the mass media.
And when a Christian work does slip under the radar (such as the Harry Potter series of books) then this can be hidden, denied, ridiculed, re-framed - and, as in the case of JK Rowling, the artist can be subverted and turned-against Christianity and absorbed-into mainstream secular Leftism by relentless pressure of bribery, co-option, intimidation and distortion.
*
So:
1. It is very important indeed that Christians become artists and intellectuals and produce beautiful work.
However:
2. This cannot be done via the mass media.
*
The implications are that Christians need to work outwith the mass media, which means via personal contact and small scale production - yet uncompromisingly of the highest possible quality.
1. Christians cannot make a living from intrinsically-Christian arts and intellectual activities - because this must be outwith the mass media therefore small scale therefore non-money-making; so they must be amateurs.
2. Since they are amateurs they need not be concerned by the size of the audience, but only by the quality of their work.
3. Since they are not concerned by the size of the audience, they do not need the mass media - they will work by word of mouth and personal recommendation/ distribution.
*
In sum, this situation is very favourable to sincere Christian creators of beauty; it means that Christian arts are wide-open - and only await creative talent (and NOT money, publicity, marketing, hype, spin or propaganda).
If there is willing talent, and the mass media are not needed - then there are no significant obstacles to be overcome. The Christian artist can simply get on with it: that is, he can get on with making beauty - as best he may.
And if you make beauty; ultimately, the world will beat a path to your door; because beauty is something we all crave, and cannot we cannot help craving.
And beauty will point us at God.
*
A typical modern university lecture (in reality, the antilecture)
*
[The imaginary and typical antilecturer speaks to his class:]
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for coming today, that minority who have attended, but everything I am about to tell you has already been posted on the internet for two weeks - so don't worry if you aren't here, because you will not be missing anything.
And if you can't make it to attend a lecture, or prefer not to come to lectures or whatever - then don't worry because the lectures are recorded so you can listen to or watch them whenever you feel like it.
And don't worry about looking at the 'powerpoint' slides because I will read them out to you, word for word. I may also say a couple of extra things about them - I'm sorry if I stray from the pre-prepared text due to unprofessionalism - but don't worry, none of the extra things I say will be important: nothing you will be expected to know for the exams! When I do depart from the internet-posted script it will just be a waste of everybody's time, I'm afraid - just try to ignore it, please...
So you do not need to take any lecture notes - but just sit back and watch the slides I am going to show you. In fact, you will not be able to take notes on this lecture, because, in a few moments, I am going to extinguish the lights for the next fifty minutes.
After the lights are out, you will not be able to see me either - because we will all be sitting in the dark. But, don't worry: that is good, because it means the experience of people here and now will be equal to those who watch and listen to the lecture some other time, on video - so nobody will be disadvantaged.
So, don't worry about anything. This is all meant to be soothing, relaxing, unthreatening. Those few of you have have turned-up today don't really need to be here, and you don't really need to watch or listen, and you don't really need to make sure you understand what I am saying - all that stuff can be done later, at your convenience - whenever you feel like it.
And you won't be at any disadvantage whatever happens - because this lecture has been designed so that those who are not here now, will not be missing anything at all compared to those of you present in this room as I speak.
Any reason to actually be here, now, with me - in this lecture - has been eliminated.
So now - just sit back and relax in the dark on your comfortable seats: watch the projected images as they flicker before you, listen to my disembodied voice, and enjoy the very best of modern, technologically-enhanced university teaching.
*
[The imaginary and typical antilecturer speaks to his class:]
Good morning ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for coming today, that minority who have attended, but everything I am about to tell you has already been posted on the internet for two weeks - so don't worry if you aren't here, because you will not be missing anything.
And if you can't make it to attend a lecture, or prefer not to come to lectures or whatever - then don't worry because the lectures are recorded so you can listen to or watch them whenever you feel like it.
And don't worry about looking at the 'powerpoint' slides because I will read them out to you, word for word. I may also say a couple of extra things about them - I'm sorry if I stray from the pre-prepared text due to unprofessionalism - but don't worry, none of the extra things I say will be important: nothing you will be expected to know for the exams! When I do depart from the internet-posted script it will just be a waste of everybody's time, I'm afraid - just try to ignore it, please...
So you do not need to take any lecture notes - but just sit back and watch the slides I am going to show you. In fact, you will not be able to take notes on this lecture, because, in a few moments, I am going to extinguish the lights for the next fifty minutes.
After the lights are out, you will not be able to see me either - because we will all be sitting in the dark. But, don't worry: that is good, because it means the experience of people here and now will be equal to those who watch and listen to the lecture some other time, on video - so nobody will be disadvantaged.
So, don't worry about anything. This is all meant to be soothing, relaxing, unthreatening. Those few of you have have turned-up today don't really need to be here, and you don't really need to watch or listen, and you don't really need to make sure you understand what I am saying - all that stuff can be done later, at your convenience - whenever you feel like it.
And you won't be at any disadvantage whatever happens - because this lecture has been designed so that those who are not here now, will not be missing anything at all compared to those of you present in this room as I speak.
Any reason to actually be here, now, with me - in this lecture - has been eliminated.
So now - just sit back and relax in the dark on your comfortable seats: watch the projected images as they flicker before you, listen to my disembodied voice, and enjoy the very best of modern, technologically-enhanced university teaching.
*
From Ten Years ago - Why are lecture sizes kept secret?
*
I work at one of the top 20 UK universities, with a reputation for good teaching. Yet in eight years my final-year class size has quadrupled from 16 to sixty-something. Is this typical? Anecdotally, yes. In the past, introductory lectures were big, but as students progressed groups became smaller. Now I hear that students at good universities may spend all three years in classes of more than 100. Indeed, this may be the tip of an iceberg. If universities are to make a profit, class sizes will probably need to be larger still.
But the really remarkable fact is that no one knows what's going on, because information on university class sizes is not collected. Although the national university "teaching inspectorate", the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), examines a great deal of paperwork, and indirectly generates vastly more, it neglects the single most important measure of teaching quality.
It is no mystery why class sizes have expanded. Over 25 years, funding per student has declined by more than half, and the average number of students per member of staff increased from 8 to 18. In the face of long-term cuts, a decline in teaching quality was inevitable. Indeed, it was anticipated: the QAA was created in order to monitor and control this decline.
But is class size important? Of course it is. A wide range of evidence suggests that the public regard class size as the single most significant measure of teaching quality. Every parent with a child at school knows their class size. Those parents who pay for their children to attend private schools are often explicitly paying for smaller classes.
And it is not just in schools that size matters. US universities publish class size statistics that are closely scrutinised by applicants. A way of measuring their importance is to see what people are prepared to pay. In a study comparing public and private universities in America, we found that students at the private institutions paid on average 80 per cent more in tuition fees, for which they got 80 per cent more time in small classes. More than 70 per cent of classes at top universities such as Harvard and Princeton have groups of fewer than 20. The expensive and prestigious undergraduate liberal arts colleges (such as Amherst, Swarthmore and Hillary Clinton's Alma Mater, Wellesley) offer not only small classes, but classes that are always taught by professors.
Given the usefulness of a valid and objective measure of university teaching quality, and the overwhelming evidence of public demand for small classes, the case for publishing national data on class sizes seems unanswerable. The extraordinary thing is that this is already available in many UK universities, because they record the number of students registered for each course for their own internal administrative purposes. It is just a matter of collecting the information. However, I doubt that universities will publish this data unless they are made to do so. University bosses probably feel too embarrassed to admit the real situation: nobody wants to be first above the parapet with shocking statistics.
But why isn't the QAA interested in class sizes? I can't think of a good reason. It has spent £53m in data collection and auditing since it was set up but has failed to provide a valid measure of teaching quality. Incompetence and inefficiency on this scale beggars belief.
When the public becomes able to choose between universities on the basis of class sizes, those institutions that teach their students in small groups for most of the time will become known and acknowledged. Such genuinely "high teaching quality" universities can expect to be rewarded by greater student demand. And if in future fees are deregulated, as seems probable, they will be well-placed to charge more in return for providing a better service.
In response to this state of affairs, I have decided to boycott the forthcoming visitation from the QAA inspectors. My hope is that those universities who make the organisational effort and financial sacrifices needed to teach small classes will at last get the proper recognition they deserve.
*
Why are lecture sizes kept secret?
Bruce Charlton
The Independent (Newspaper). 07 October 2004
The Independent (Newspaper). 07 October 2004
I work at one of the top 20 UK universities, with a reputation for good teaching. Yet in eight years my final-year class size has quadrupled from 16 to sixty-something. Is this typical? Anecdotally, yes. In the past, introductory lectures were big, but as students progressed groups became smaller. Now I hear that students at good universities may spend all three years in classes of more than 100. Indeed, this may be the tip of an iceberg. If universities are to make a profit, class sizes will probably need to be larger still.
But the really remarkable fact is that no one knows what's going on, because information on university class sizes is not collected. Although the national university "teaching inspectorate", the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), examines a great deal of paperwork, and indirectly generates vastly more, it neglects the single most important measure of teaching quality.
It is no mystery why class sizes have expanded. Over 25 years, funding per student has declined by more than half, and the average number of students per member of staff increased from 8 to 18. In the face of long-term cuts, a decline in teaching quality was inevitable. Indeed, it was anticipated: the QAA was created in order to monitor and control this decline.
But is class size important? Of course it is. A wide range of evidence suggests that the public regard class size as the single most significant measure of teaching quality. Every parent with a child at school knows their class size. Those parents who pay for their children to attend private schools are often explicitly paying for smaller classes.
And it is not just in schools that size matters. US universities publish class size statistics that are closely scrutinised by applicants. A way of measuring their importance is to see what people are prepared to pay. In a study comparing public and private universities in America, we found that students at the private institutions paid on average 80 per cent more in tuition fees, for which they got 80 per cent more time in small classes. More than 70 per cent of classes at top universities such as Harvard and Princeton have groups of fewer than 20. The expensive and prestigious undergraduate liberal arts colleges (such as Amherst, Swarthmore and Hillary Clinton's Alma Mater, Wellesley) offer not only small classes, but classes that are always taught by professors.
Given the usefulness of a valid and objective measure of university teaching quality, and the overwhelming evidence of public demand for small classes, the case for publishing national data on class sizes seems unanswerable. The extraordinary thing is that this is already available in many UK universities, because they record the number of students registered for each course for their own internal administrative purposes. It is just a matter of collecting the information. However, I doubt that universities will publish this data unless they are made to do so. University bosses probably feel too embarrassed to admit the real situation: nobody wants to be first above the parapet with shocking statistics.
But why isn't the QAA interested in class sizes? I can't think of a good reason. It has spent £53m in data collection and auditing since it was set up but has failed to provide a valid measure of teaching quality. Incompetence and inefficiency on this scale beggars belief.
When the public becomes able to choose between universities on the basis of class sizes, those institutions that teach their students in small groups for most of the time will become known and acknowledged. Such genuinely "high teaching quality" universities can expect to be rewarded by greater student demand. And if in future fees are deregulated, as seems probable, they will be well-placed to charge more in return for providing a better service.
In response to this state of affairs, I have decided to boycott the forthcoming visitation from the QAA inspectors. My hope is that those universities who make the organisational effort and financial sacrifices needed to teach small classes will at last get the proper recognition they deserve.
*
Sunday 10 August 2014
Review of Addicted to Distraction on Throne, Altar, Liberty blog
*
Review of my new book
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/
*
This is any authors's 'dream review' - thanks to Gerry T Neal
http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/a-cave-of-our-own-construction.html
Review of my new book
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/
*
This is any authors's 'dream review' - thanks to Gerry T Neal
http://thronealtarliberty.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/a-cave-of-our-own-construction.html
*
SUNDAY, AUGUST 10, 2014
A Cave of Our Own Construction
Addicted to Distraction by Bruce G. Charlton, Buckingham, United Kingdom, University of Buckingham Press, 2014, 163 pp., £10
Among traditionalists, reactionaries, paleoconservatives and the rest of us who comprise what is usually called “the Right” it is customary, when the mass media is discussed, to maintain that it is heavily biased towards the Left. Our progressive opponents deride this claim, pointing to the television news channels, radio talk shows, and printed publications that offer an editorial perspective that is widely thought of as being “conservative”. In response we might point out that such media outlets offer a “neoconservative” perspective which is actually a form of liberalism – it is all about how democracy, capitalism and individualism are the hope and salvation of mankind, to be brought to the uttermost corners of the world by the force of the American military if necessary. A defense of actual conservative ideas and institutions, from a perspective that is critical of the modern assumptions that neoconservatives shared with the progressive and liberal Left is avoided by the media like the plague.
Recently, however, I encountered the following sentence which offers a rather different assessment of the relationship between the mass media and the Left:
Leftism is the Mass Media, and the Mass Media is Leftism, inseparable, the same thing: this of course means that Leftism (in its modern form) depends utterly on the continuation of the Mass Media (depends on itself!), stands or falls with the Mass Media. (bold indicates italics in original)
This remarkable sentence can be found on pages 26 to 27 of a fascinating new book entitled Addicted to Distraction. The author is Dr. Bruce G. Charlton, a physician and psychiatrist who is Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham. He is also a Christian and a prominent blogger in that right-wing sector of the internet known as the “Orthosphere” in the broader sense of the term that includes not just the website by that name but various others with a similar right-wing, traditionalist Christian perspective, including Dr. Charlton’s own site, where the term was originally coined, and this one.
The quoted sentence would elicit from many, probably most, people the response that it confuses the distinction between that which is neutral – in this case the technology of large-scale communication – and that which is charged – the thoughts and words conveyed by that technology. This is a conditioned response, one which is made without much if any thought being put into it, and it raises the question of how valid this distinction actually is. Canada’s greatest conservative philosopher, George Grant, did not think it was valid and devoted much of his thought and writing to demonstrating that technology was anything but neutral. It was another Canadian of Grant’s generation, a pioneer in the study of media communications named Marshal McLuhan, who famously remarked that “the medium is the message” and it is from the launching pad of this insight of McLuhan’s that Dr. Charlton’s own reflections on the nature of the mass media take off.
This does not mean that the mass media that he equates with the Left consists merely of communications technology. Dr. Charlton distinguishes between two senses of the expression mass media. There is the technology itself – print, radio, television, internet, etc – and then there is the system into which all this technology is integrated, the “unified network of communications”. It is the latter which is the focus of his discussion.
Another important distinction he makes is between the Old Left and the New Left. The Old Marxist Left of the trades unions and socialist parties was revolutionary but it was also utopian and visionary. It sought to overthrow the institutions of the existing order but with the idea that it would replace them with a new order that would be a Paradise on earth. The New Left is the Left of “Permanent Revolution” or “perpetual opposition”, which Dr. Charlton describes as the idea that:
The true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical intellectual – was intrinsically subversive; and would always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as necessary to achieve this. (p. 18)
If the New Left is always seeking to subvert, oppose, and to overthrow then its agenda is entirely negative. It seeks nothing but destruction and is essentially nihilistic. This, Dr. Charlton argues, is also the essential nature of the mass media.
He describes several specific techniques by which the mass media subverts the good. For example, when Anders Brevik killed all those kids in Norway a couple of years ago the media initially reported that he was a right-wing Christian. Brevik was not a professing Christian at all but the initial reports that contained the falsehood created a far deeper impression than subsequent retractions. Dr. Charlton calls this “first strike framing”, a technique whereby the media subverts something positive – in this case Christianity – by creating a false association in the first reports of an atrocity from which the lasting visceral response is derived. (pp. 71-75)
The subversiveness of the mass media does not lie merely in certain techniques, however. Nor is it to be found in some cabal of conspirators who pull the levels of the media behind the scenes, Dr. Charlton insists, but in the very nature of the system itself. The mass media, as he describes it, is an integrated network of communications technology that has so permeated society that it envelops and surrounds us. It generates a pseudoreality of image and opinion that distracts us from the real world in which we live. The images and opinions it generates are subject to change at any moment and may completely contradict those that preceded them but are presented to us as absolute truths disagreement with which renders a person a dangerous, crazy, outsider. This combination of short-term absolutism with long-term complete relativism, Dr. Charlton labels “Opinionated Relativism”. By distracting us from the real world, common sense, and personal experience and bombarding us with dogmatic but ever-changing opinions and images it subverts our confidence in that which is true, good, and beautiful. His characterization of it as evil and demonic seems entirely appropriate.
So what do we do about it?
While Dr. Charlton does not proffer a plan as to how the mass media system can be defeated as a whole – he indicates that the system will have to collapse on its own before there can be a large scale return to reality – he offers some helpful suggestions as to how we can deal with it as individuals. We are addicted to the false reality the mass media presents us, he argues, and rather than try to wean ourselves off of it, for those who think that they can pick out what is good from the mass media are the most deceived and deluded, we ought to quit it cold turkey. While the process of “detoxing”, by which we stop seeking out, paying attention to, and believing the media and turn our attention back towards reality is one that will involve failure – for we are immersed in the media in societies where everybody is an addict – there is hope, he says, at least for the Christian, because reality is superior to the falsehoods of the media.
Addicted to Distraction is a short book but one that is packed with insights the surface of which I have only begun to scratch in this review. I heartily recommend it.
Among traditionalists, reactionaries, paleoconservatives and the rest of us who comprise what is usually called “the Right” it is customary, when the mass media is discussed, to maintain that it is heavily biased towards the Left. Our progressive opponents deride this claim, pointing to the television news channels, radio talk shows, and printed publications that offer an editorial perspective that is widely thought of as being “conservative”. In response we might point out that such media outlets offer a “neoconservative” perspective which is actually a form of liberalism – it is all about how democracy, capitalism and individualism are the hope and salvation of mankind, to be brought to the uttermost corners of the world by the force of the American military if necessary. A defense of actual conservative ideas and institutions, from a perspective that is critical of the modern assumptions that neoconservatives shared with the progressive and liberal Left is avoided by the media like the plague.
Recently, however, I encountered the following sentence which offers a rather different assessment of the relationship between the mass media and the Left:
Leftism is the Mass Media, and the Mass Media is Leftism, inseparable, the same thing: this of course means that Leftism (in its modern form) depends utterly on the continuation of the Mass Media (depends on itself!), stands or falls with the Mass Media. (bold indicates italics in original)
This remarkable sentence can be found on pages 26 to 27 of a fascinating new book entitled Addicted to Distraction. The author is Dr. Bruce G. Charlton, a physician and psychiatrist who is Professor of Theoretical Medicine at the University of Buckingham. He is also a Christian and a prominent blogger in that right-wing sector of the internet known as the “Orthosphere” in the broader sense of the term that includes not just the website by that name but various others with a similar right-wing, traditionalist Christian perspective, including Dr. Charlton’s own site, where the term was originally coined, and this one.
The quoted sentence would elicit from many, probably most, people the response that it confuses the distinction between that which is neutral – in this case the technology of large-scale communication – and that which is charged – the thoughts and words conveyed by that technology. This is a conditioned response, one which is made without much if any thought being put into it, and it raises the question of how valid this distinction actually is. Canada’s greatest conservative philosopher, George Grant, did not think it was valid and devoted much of his thought and writing to demonstrating that technology was anything but neutral. It was another Canadian of Grant’s generation, a pioneer in the study of media communications named Marshal McLuhan, who famously remarked that “the medium is the message” and it is from the launching pad of this insight of McLuhan’s that Dr. Charlton’s own reflections on the nature of the mass media take off.
This does not mean that the mass media that he equates with the Left consists merely of communications technology. Dr. Charlton distinguishes between two senses of the expression mass media. There is the technology itself – print, radio, television, internet, etc – and then there is the system into which all this technology is integrated, the “unified network of communications”. It is the latter which is the focus of his discussion.
Another important distinction he makes is between the Old Left and the New Left. The Old Marxist Left of the trades unions and socialist parties was revolutionary but it was also utopian and visionary. It sought to overthrow the institutions of the existing order but with the idea that it would replace them with a new order that would be a Paradise on earth. The New Left is the Left of “Permanent Revolution” or “perpetual opposition”, which Dr. Charlton describes as the idea that:
The true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical intellectual – was intrinsically subversive; and would always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as necessary to achieve this. (p. 18)
If the New Left is always seeking to subvert, oppose, and to overthrow then its agenda is entirely negative. It seeks nothing but destruction and is essentially nihilistic. This, Dr. Charlton argues, is also the essential nature of the mass media.
He describes several specific techniques by which the mass media subverts the good. For example, when Anders Brevik killed all those kids in Norway a couple of years ago the media initially reported that he was a right-wing Christian. Brevik was not a professing Christian at all but the initial reports that contained the falsehood created a far deeper impression than subsequent retractions. Dr. Charlton calls this “first strike framing”, a technique whereby the media subverts something positive – in this case Christianity – by creating a false association in the first reports of an atrocity from which the lasting visceral response is derived. (pp. 71-75)
The subversiveness of the mass media does not lie merely in certain techniques, however. Nor is it to be found in some cabal of conspirators who pull the levels of the media behind the scenes, Dr. Charlton insists, but in the very nature of the system itself. The mass media, as he describes it, is an integrated network of communications technology that has so permeated society that it envelops and surrounds us. It generates a pseudoreality of image and opinion that distracts us from the real world in which we live. The images and opinions it generates are subject to change at any moment and may completely contradict those that preceded them but are presented to us as absolute truths disagreement with which renders a person a dangerous, crazy, outsider. This combination of short-term absolutism with long-term complete relativism, Dr. Charlton labels “Opinionated Relativism”. By distracting us from the real world, common sense, and personal experience and bombarding us with dogmatic but ever-changing opinions and images it subverts our confidence in that which is true, good, and beautiful. His characterization of it as evil and demonic seems entirely appropriate.
So what do we do about it?
While Dr. Charlton does not proffer a plan as to how the mass media system can be defeated as a whole – he indicates that the system will have to collapse on its own before there can be a large scale return to reality – he offers some helpful suggestions as to how we can deal with it as individuals. We are addicted to the false reality the mass media presents us, he argues, and rather than try to wean ourselves off of it, for those who think that they can pick out what is good from the mass media are the most deceived and deluded, we ought to quit it cold turkey. While the process of “detoxing”, by which we stop seeking out, paying attention to, and believing the media and turn our attention back towards reality is one that will involve failure – for we are immersed in the media in societies where everybody is an addict – there is hope, he says, at least for the Christian, because reality is superior to the falsehoods of the media.
Addicted to Distraction is a short book but one that is packed with insights the surface of which I have only begun to scratch in this review. I heartily recommend it.
*
Saturday 9 August 2014
Modernity is a lethal disease - therefore the human species is under harsh selection for *resistance* to Modernity
*
That Modernity is a lethal disease can be seen from the grossly abnormal behaviour of the most thoroughly-modern people in the most modern societies - in particular that the reproductive success (average number of viable offspring person) of modern people in modern societies is substantially below replacement levels (this being the objective, biological measure of a disease - or a pathology).
*
So Modernity is perhaps the major selection pressure operating on mankind now and for the past several generations. What is being selected-for is heritable resistance to Modernity - immunity-against modernity.
*
Some people seem to be naturally immune to having their fertility suppressed. They just do not respond to the societal signals and controls which encourage everybody else not to have children, to delay having children, and to have as few as possible. They just carry on having more than two kids, and 'society' makes sure that however many they have, they will be raised up to a sexually viable maturity.
IF the reasons that these people carry on having more-than-two children is heritable - THEN this is natural selection; because the proportion of Modernity-immune people will increase in each generation.
*
What sorts of thing that resist modernity are heritable?
Individual features such as low intelligence, or a short-termist and impulsive personality, and group features such as exhibited by some religions.
Some modernity-resisting religions are heritable - on average, offspring are retained above-replacement fertility is maintained - and group selection will tend to make the proportion of people in these religions expand with each generation.
And this is what we find.
*
That Modernity is a lethal disease can be seen from the grossly abnormal behaviour of the most thoroughly-modern people in the most modern societies - in particular that the reproductive success (average number of viable offspring person) of modern people in modern societies is substantially below replacement levels (this being the objective, biological measure of a disease - or a pathology).
*
So Modernity is perhaps the major selection pressure operating on mankind now and for the past several generations. What is being selected-for is heritable resistance to Modernity - immunity-against modernity.
*
Some people seem to be naturally immune to having their fertility suppressed. They just do not respond to the societal signals and controls which encourage everybody else not to have children, to delay having children, and to have as few as possible. They just carry on having more than two kids, and 'society' makes sure that however many they have, they will be raised up to a sexually viable maturity.
IF the reasons that these people carry on having more-than-two children is heritable - THEN this is natural selection; because the proportion of Modernity-immune people will increase in each generation.
*
What sorts of thing that resist modernity are heritable?
Individual features such as low intelligence, or a short-termist and impulsive personality, and group features such as exhibited by some religions.
Some modernity-resisting religions are heritable - on average, offspring are retained above-replacement fertility is maintained - and group selection will tend to make the proportion of people in these religions expand with each generation.
And this is what we find.
*
Friday 8 August 2014
A theology based on God's love, and the need for a personal relationship with God; not on "hard-core metaphysical attributes"
*
Explaining the basic difference in approach between Mormon theology and the classical 'metaphysical' theology of mainstream post-Apostolic Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).
It is remarkable that throughout the history of Christian thought few indeed have started their exploration from the basic conviction that 'God is love'.
It is commonplace in Christian theology to start from metaphysical concepts, such as the notion that God is a perfect being or that God is the metaphysical explanation for all existence.
The metaphysical approach to God... emphasizes the more abstract and impersonal attributes of God, including divine omniscience and omnipotence. It emphasizes the 'hard-core metaphysical attributes' of divine simplicity, pure actuality, aseity, impassibility, timelessness, and immutability.
[But] any theology that begins with metaphysical postulates makes it very difficult to speak of God in interpersonal terms...
Whereas the picture of God that has dominated Christian theology is that of the Unmoved Mover, it seems that the interpersonal God of disclosed in the scripture is the Most Moved Mover - that person who above all else seeks to persuade us to enter into a loving relationship of the type that exists between a father and a son, or a committed husband and a beloved wife.
Relationality is the true essence of God - the opposite of the God of the philosophers...
What if, instead, we started from the most basic commitment of Jesus's teachings - that God is the type of person whom we could seek in intimate prayer as our 'abba', our 'Daddy in Heaven'?
*
Edited from Chapter One of Blake T Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: the problems of theism and the love of God - Volume 2.
*
Explaining the basic difference in approach between Mormon theology and the classical 'metaphysical' theology of mainstream post-Apostolic Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant).
*
It is remarkable that throughout the history of Christian thought few indeed have started their exploration from the basic conviction that 'God is love'.
It is commonplace in Christian theology to start from metaphysical concepts, such as the notion that God is a perfect being or that God is the metaphysical explanation for all existence.
The metaphysical approach to God... emphasizes the more abstract and impersonal attributes of God, including divine omniscience and omnipotence. It emphasizes the 'hard-core metaphysical attributes' of divine simplicity, pure actuality, aseity, impassibility, timelessness, and immutability.
[But] any theology that begins with metaphysical postulates makes it very difficult to speak of God in interpersonal terms...
Whereas the picture of God that has dominated Christian theology is that of the Unmoved Mover, it seems that the interpersonal God of disclosed in the scripture is the Most Moved Mover - that person who above all else seeks to persuade us to enter into a loving relationship of the type that exists between a father and a son, or a committed husband and a beloved wife.
Relationality is the true essence of God - the opposite of the God of the philosophers...
What if, instead, we started from the most basic commitment of Jesus's teachings - that God is the type of person whom we could seek in intimate prayer as our 'abba', our 'Daddy in Heaven'?
*
Edited from Chapter One of Blake T Ostler's Exploring Mormon Thought: the problems of theism and the love of God - Volume 2.
*
The corruption of science en-pictured
*
Sometimes a single cartoon encapsulates a whole book.
This is the cartoon:
From http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Illogical%20Scientist
This is the book:
Not even trying: the corruption of real science. By Bruce G Charlton
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk
*
Sometimes a single cartoon encapsulates a whole book.
This is the cartoon:
From http://search.dilbert.com/comic/Illogical%20Scientist
This is the book:
Not even trying: the corruption of real science. By Bruce G Charlton
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk
*
One and a half million page views - Ta Dah!
*
Although this is a declining blog, in terms of the impact of new posts - and daily page views peaked 9 months ago at about 55K and have been dwindling gradually... nonetheless I have just noticed that it has now passed the 1.5M mark and today's stats show "Pageviews all time history - 1,501,478" for 2,683 posts.
Oct 2012 - Half a million (this took more than two years of daily blogging)
Oct 2013 - One million
Aug 2014 - One and a half million
Since I don't make a bean from the blog, or from the mini-books which it spawns; these numbers are just about self-esteem/ vanity. The principal value of the exercise, from my point of view, rests on a few personal e-mails I have received from readers over the past four years - telling me that the blog has been helpful in their spiritual life.
To those readers - thank you for telling me.
*
Although this is a declining blog, in terms of the impact of new posts - and daily page views peaked 9 months ago at about 55K and have been dwindling gradually... nonetheless I have just noticed that it has now passed the 1.5M mark and today's stats show "Pageviews all time history - 1,501,478" for 2,683 posts.
Oct 2012 - Half a million (this took more than two years of daily blogging)
Oct 2013 - One million
Aug 2014 - One and a half million
Since I don't make a bean from the blog, or from the mini-books which it spawns; these numbers are just about self-esteem/ vanity. The principal value of the exercise, from my point of view, rests on a few personal e-mails I have received from readers over the past four years - telling me that the blog has been helpful in their spiritual life.
To those readers - thank you for telling me.
*
Thursday 7 August 2014
Are you fit? Are you strong? If so; fit for what and strong at what?
*
As a reasonable generalization, people are fit for whatever they do a lot of, and their strength is related to what they do a lot of in a physical sense.
Three generations ago, the fittest, strongest men around here (Newcastle upon Tyne, England) were the face workers in the coal mines.
They were fit for work - and indeed fit to make superb infantrymen when it came to war - able to keep going under severe conditions.
The fittest men were (like my paternal grandfather) small, bandy-legged, wiry - and they could pick-axe and shovel coal, hundreds of metres underground, in cramped conditions (the seams around here are shallow, about half a man's height), hour after hour, and against the clock (they only got paid for what they shoveled).
This was elite work - most men could not do it - they just did not pick and shovel enough to keep themselves alive or make it worth employing them.
They were fit for what they did, they were strong at what was needed.
*
Nowadays, the local equivalent are the vastly bulky androgen-using power-weight-trainers, maybe working as 'bouncers' (door security) - who are fit for lifting weights, and strong at lifting weights (and presumably also at shoving and hitting people).
Or perhaps they are sportsmen - who are fit for their sport - strong at whatever the sport requires.
Or perhaps they are the narcissistic weight trainers/ body builders who use drugs (and dietary supplements etc) - but only as a means to the end of enhancing and sculpting their muscles, and making themselves feel more... well, if not exactly 'masculine', then at least macho.
They are fit to look at themselves in the mirror; to parade up-and-down in cut-away vests, shorts and flip-flops. They are strong at using exercise machines.
*
Fit for what, strong at what?
And what is the point of it?
*
Note: comments are closed.
As a reasonable generalization, people are fit for whatever they do a lot of, and their strength is related to what they do a lot of in a physical sense.
Three generations ago, the fittest, strongest men around here (Newcastle upon Tyne, England) were the face workers in the coal mines.
They were fit for work - and indeed fit to make superb infantrymen when it came to war - able to keep going under severe conditions.
The fittest men were (like my paternal grandfather) small, bandy-legged, wiry - and they could pick-axe and shovel coal, hundreds of metres underground, in cramped conditions (the seams around here are shallow, about half a man's height), hour after hour, and against the clock (they only got paid for what they shoveled).
This was elite work - most men could not do it - they just did not pick and shovel enough to keep themselves alive or make it worth employing them.
They were fit for what they did, they were strong at what was needed.
*
Nowadays, the local equivalent are the vastly bulky androgen-using power-weight-trainers, maybe working as 'bouncers' (door security) - who are fit for lifting weights, and strong at lifting weights (and presumably also at shoving and hitting people).
Or perhaps they are sportsmen - who are fit for their sport - strong at whatever the sport requires.
Or perhaps they are the narcissistic weight trainers/ body builders who use drugs (and dietary supplements etc) - but only as a means to the end of enhancing and sculpting their muscles, and making themselves feel more... well, if not exactly 'masculine', then at least macho.
They are fit to look at themselves in the mirror; to parade up-and-down in cut-away vests, shorts and flip-flops. They are strong at using exercise machines.
*
Fit for what, strong at what?
And what is the point of it?
*
Note: comments are closed.
Longevity versus real health - more reflections on mouse utopia
*
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-demise-of-mouse-utopia.html
In the late phases of the mouse utopia experiment the birth rate dwindled to zero - but there was a plateau phase when the population numbers remained approximately static because the mice were living to an extreme old age - four years and longer, which is considerably older than mice will usually live in the wild.
Yet these mice were grossly abnormal, indeed pathological, in their behaviour. - in particular what might be termed psychiatric abnormalities that impaired social interaction (and reproduction) including a strange narcissism in some male mice (the 'beautiful ones') which looked like superb physical specimens but did not mate
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-signs-should-we-look-for-in.html
*
So we find on the one hand a combination of evidence of cumulative disease, initially manifested in the realm of behaviour - yet on the other hand an ageing population with some animals having a very long life span.
*
My interpretation is that an increasing average lifespan cannot be interpreted as improving health - indeed increasing lifespan is compatible with a severe reduction in health; especially when health is defined 'biologically' in terms of reproductive success (having sufficient viable offspring to maintain population numbers, and potentially amplify the population when conditions permit).
*
In Britain in recent decades there has been a large increase in average lifespan (among the native population), including several-fold increases in the length of survival of many groups of ill people. For example, elderly people with moderate to severe dementia may now live for many years, whereas thirty or forty years ago such a diagnosis was regarded as being rapidly fatal.
There is no doubt that modern people have been, and are being, misled by the increase in lifespan - and superficial appearances of youthfulness - into assuming that population health is improving; when in biological terms what matters is the ability to survive and reproduce under given conditions.
*
Only if modern people - in particular those of reproductive and productive age - were put into the same kind of environment that people of the past lived-in, would we know whether they really do have better health.
In hunter gatherer societies those who lacked mobility would, sooner or later, necessarily be left to die. In agricultural societies, the struggle for survival was extremely severe.
But modern societies shelter pretty much everybody from exposure to extreme heat or cold, dehydration, starvation, epidemic infectious disease and violence; plus the treatment of chronic medical conditions which would soon cripple or kill without continued medication and management.
Therefore, many people (such as myself!) who would been unable to do anything useful or even survive in historical societies, are able to live for many extra decades in modern societies - with all appearances of good health... except for behavioural pathologies and sub-fertility.
*
My point is that modern people may be much less healthy than they think they are; and that if societal conditions reverted towards those of historical agrarian societies, or hunter gatherer conditions, their low fitness and inability to survive would become very obvious.
*
Perhaps the increasingly elderly individuals of the terminal phase of mouse utopia may have congratulated themselves on the success of the experiment, and that mice had attained a more comfortable and compassionate level of social organization than in any previous society.
And then they died out; every last one of them.
*
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-demise-of-mouse-utopia.html
In the late phases of the mouse utopia experiment the birth rate dwindled to zero - but there was a plateau phase when the population numbers remained approximately static because the mice were living to an extreme old age - four years and longer, which is considerably older than mice will usually live in the wild.
Yet these mice were grossly abnormal, indeed pathological, in their behaviour. - in particular what might be termed psychiatric abnormalities that impaired social interaction (and reproduction) including a strange narcissism in some male mice (the 'beautiful ones') which looked like superb physical specimens but did not mate
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/what-signs-should-we-look-for-in.html
*
So we find on the one hand a combination of evidence of cumulative disease, initially manifested in the realm of behaviour - yet on the other hand an ageing population with some animals having a very long life span.
*
My interpretation is that an increasing average lifespan cannot be interpreted as improving health - indeed increasing lifespan is compatible with a severe reduction in health; especially when health is defined 'biologically' in terms of reproductive success (having sufficient viable offspring to maintain population numbers, and potentially amplify the population when conditions permit).
*
In Britain in recent decades there has been a large increase in average lifespan (among the native population), including several-fold increases in the length of survival of many groups of ill people. For example, elderly people with moderate to severe dementia may now live for many years, whereas thirty or forty years ago such a diagnosis was regarded as being rapidly fatal.
There is no doubt that modern people have been, and are being, misled by the increase in lifespan - and superficial appearances of youthfulness - into assuming that population health is improving; when in biological terms what matters is the ability to survive and reproduce under given conditions.
*
Only if modern people - in particular those of reproductive and productive age - were put into the same kind of environment that people of the past lived-in, would we know whether they really do have better health.
In hunter gatherer societies those who lacked mobility would, sooner or later, necessarily be left to die. In agricultural societies, the struggle for survival was extremely severe.
But modern societies shelter pretty much everybody from exposure to extreme heat or cold, dehydration, starvation, epidemic infectious disease and violence; plus the treatment of chronic medical conditions which would soon cripple or kill without continued medication and management.
Therefore, many people (such as myself!) who would been unable to do anything useful or even survive in historical societies, are able to live for many extra decades in modern societies - with all appearances of good health... except for behavioural pathologies and sub-fertility.
*
My point is that modern people may be much less healthy than they think they are; and that if societal conditions reverted towards those of historical agrarian societies, or hunter gatherer conditions, their low fitness and inability to survive would become very obvious.
*
Perhaps the increasingly elderly individuals of the terminal phase of mouse utopia may have congratulated themselves on the success of the experiment, and that mice had attained a more comfortable and compassionate level of social organization than in any previous society.
And then they died out; every last one of them.
*
Wednesday 6 August 2014
From 8 years ago - Lecturing: personality and style
*
Bruce Charlton: Dressed in a little brief authority
The best lectures I attended as a student were given by a spellbinding psychiatrist. He used no teaching aid except his hypnotic Viennese accent. Yet once heard, his spoken lessons were never forgotten: they were unmissable theatrical performances, happening here and now.
Traditional lectures are very unpopular among the quality-management gurus who increasingly dominate university teaching. It is asserted that they are ineffective, while encouraging passive learning.
I suspect the real reason that quality managers hate them is that they leave no "paper trail" and hence cannot easily be audited.
When lectures seem unavoidable, we are advised that they should be jazzed up with visual aids to the point where the teacher's spoken words become superfluous. A quality-approved lecture takes place in the dark, with a disembodied voice intoning soporific commentary around a display of still-image and video projections. Even worse, it is recommended that handouts be supplied beforehand so there is no suspense, no surprises and nothing significant for the students to do but absorb. With such a flaccid learning experience, the students soon realise that the inconvenience of attendance adds little to their education.
But the fact that most students still prefer to enrol at residential colleges rather than take distance-learning courses implies that they want face-to-face teaching from teachers. Successful distance learning requires a high level of motivation and self-discipline. High-flyers can get by on self-education and a couple of hours of personal tuition each week. But the mass of students need to be, and are paying to be, taught. They deserve a well-filled timetable with plenty of formal instruction and this, inevitably, means large group lectures.
They are not just a poor second choice to small group seminars; they are the best method for teaching certain kinds of knowledge, such as the essentials in tough subjects including the natural sciences, medicine and law. They have special value in making abstract systematic material more accessible.
It is easier to learn by hearing than by reading because direct speech was, for most of human history, the only way to communicate concepts. Literacy is a recent cultural artefact requiring expertise, and the ability to learn from text varies widely among students.
The situation of a formal lecture also puts teachers at the focus of attention, which bestows authority and high status. Humans spontaneously attend to people of high status and tend to remember what they communicate.
So a formal lecture creates a social framework that makes it easier for less motivated students to pay attention and to remember what has been said.
And it is the process of taking lecture notes that converts a passive experience into an active one, since the need for attention, selection and organisation encourages deeper understanding and improves recall.
Residential universities should stop apologising for lectures. Instead of trying to make ourselves into expensive and second-rate versions of the Open University, we should be offering our students frequent formal, traditional lectures with an expectation of attendance. And each student should be told that a set of self-prepared lecture notes is the best way to remember what they have been taught.
Finally, there is the matter of job satisfaction. We can't all be Viennese wizards, but the magic of formal lectures see us "dressed in a little brief authority" - which is nice, while it lasts.
Bruce Charlton is reader in evolutionary psychiatry at Newcastle University.
Is Time inevitable? Time and pluralism versus out-of-Time and monism
*
The attitude to Time defines much. If Time is inevitable, always a factor - then there can be no unity of entities, no omnipotence, no omniscience... at least not in any absolute sense. Because if it takes time to know something, then knowledge is always incomplete; if it takes time to do something, then power is thereby limited.
*
If communication is necessary, Time is necessary; or, if things can be causally linked without need for communication - this requires that Time is not necessarily a factor.
(This is akin to the distinction between General Relativity, where Time and communication are necessary; and Quantum theories, where they are not.)
To put it another way, any doctrine of the utter unity of (say) the Holy Trinity, or God and Man, or the reality of several absolute attributes accorded to God; all depend on the reality of simultaneity - things must be able to happen at exactly the same moment, without need for communication, and without any time-lag.
*
Consider the Holy Trinity and the one-ness between God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - is this a complete harmony which require communication and therefore some 'elapsing of Time'? Or is the unity one entailing a simultaneity of will and therefore no Time elapsing? - that the unity of will is therefore necessarily outside of Time.
If Time is inevitable, and communication takes Time (no matter how minuscule this Time may be - some Time must have elapsed in the process of communication), then the Holy Trinity are separate persons in communication; but if Time can be transcended, then there could in principle be a non-communicative one-ness of unity (but then the status of the Trinity as individual persons loses meaning).
*
Upon this distinction depends whether deification/ theosis is a matter of unity with God or relationship with God.
Unity with God entails the reality of a state of being outside of Time - in this state God and Man are merged, and therefore in practice (given the vastness of difference) Man is absorbed into God.
But if Time is an absolute, then there can be no merging - rather the highest goals is a perfection of communication; but status as separate persons would necessarily be retained because of Time.
Any communications between God and a Man would take some Time, and the elapsing of that Time (however brief) is a mark of the separation of God and each Man.
*
So Time goes-with pluralism - with an irreducible multiplicity of entities in communication; while the possibility of outside-of-Time implies that reality, or at least highest reality, is a unity with no distinction of parts or persons.
And the possibility of transcending Time goes-with a Heaven of static, unchanging bliss - perfect, outside of Time; while the absolute reality of Time goes-with a Heaven of multiple persons and wills in communication - the highest satisfaction is not fixed or final, but a continuation and expansion of communication: i.e. relationship.
So, according to our attitude to Time, we get a very different concept of the highest aim of becoming Sons of God, ourselves god (deification) - and of the process towards this variously called theosis, sanctification or spiritual progression.
On the one hand, it is a movement towards a loving and blissful merging-into and assimilating-with God. This out-of-Time Heaven is unity in divinity.
Or, on the other hand, it is becoming sufficiently like God as to enter into in a close and loving and permanent relationship with Him, with other beings of similar kind (such as angels) and with other deified Men (including potentially spouses and families); and continue with theosis, and to join with the work or task of helping others to attain theosis, and participate ever more fully and widely in the relationships of divine community - which is Heaven.
*
It is fascinating how so much hinges on our understanding-of, and belief-in, the necessity and possibility of Time/ not-Time.
*
The attitude to Time defines much. If Time is inevitable, always a factor - then there can be no unity of entities, no omnipotence, no omniscience... at least not in any absolute sense. Because if it takes time to know something, then knowledge is always incomplete; if it takes time to do something, then power is thereby limited.
*
If communication is necessary, Time is necessary; or, if things can be causally linked without need for communication - this requires that Time is not necessarily a factor.
(This is akin to the distinction between General Relativity, where Time and communication are necessary; and Quantum theories, where they are not.)
To put it another way, any doctrine of the utter unity of (say) the Holy Trinity, or God and Man, or the reality of several absolute attributes accorded to God; all depend on the reality of simultaneity - things must be able to happen at exactly the same moment, without need for communication, and without any time-lag.
*
Consider the Holy Trinity and the one-ness between God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost - is this a complete harmony which require communication and therefore some 'elapsing of Time'? Or is the unity one entailing a simultaneity of will and therefore no Time elapsing? - that the unity of will is therefore necessarily outside of Time.
If Time is inevitable, and communication takes Time (no matter how minuscule this Time may be - some Time must have elapsed in the process of communication), then the Holy Trinity are separate persons in communication; but if Time can be transcended, then there could in principle be a non-communicative one-ness of unity (but then the status of the Trinity as individual persons loses meaning).
*
Upon this distinction depends whether deification/ theosis is a matter of unity with God or relationship with God.
Unity with God entails the reality of a state of being outside of Time - in this state God and Man are merged, and therefore in practice (given the vastness of difference) Man is absorbed into God.
But if Time is an absolute, then there can be no merging - rather the highest goals is a perfection of communication; but status as separate persons would necessarily be retained because of Time.
Any communications between God and a Man would take some Time, and the elapsing of that Time (however brief) is a mark of the separation of God and each Man.
*
So Time goes-with pluralism - with an irreducible multiplicity of entities in communication; while the possibility of outside-of-Time implies that reality, or at least highest reality, is a unity with no distinction of parts or persons.
And the possibility of transcending Time goes-with a Heaven of static, unchanging bliss - perfect, outside of Time; while the absolute reality of Time goes-with a Heaven of multiple persons and wills in communication - the highest satisfaction is not fixed or final, but a continuation and expansion of communication: i.e. relationship.
So, according to our attitude to Time, we get a very different concept of the highest aim of becoming Sons of God, ourselves god (deification) - and of the process towards this variously called theosis, sanctification or spiritual progression.
On the one hand, it is a movement towards a loving and blissful merging-into and assimilating-with God. This out-of-Time Heaven is unity in divinity.
Or, on the other hand, it is becoming sufficiently like God as to enter into in a close and loving and permanent relationship with Him, with other beings of similar kind (such as angels) and with other deified Men (including potentially spouses and families); and continue with theosis, and to join with the work or task of helping others to attain theosis, and participate ever more fully and widely in the relationships of divine community - which is Heaven.
*
It is fascinating how so much hinges on our understanding-of, and belief-in, the necessity and possibility of Time/ not-Time.
*
The rationale for teaching by lecture
*
The lecture is not the ideal form of teaching - that is the prolonged one-to-one apprenticeship.
But the lecture has been found to be a very useful form of teaching (for certain purposes, within certain constraints) for many hundreds of years, and it has not been superseded by anything superior.
Indeed, there have been times and places in history when the lecture became the focus for teaching; and some of these times and places have been near the summit of educational excellence; for example medieval Paris or Oxford, of the 'Scottish Enlightenment' universities of the eighteenth century; both of which were lecture-focused systems, although with different forms of lecture.
Indeed, my own experience of the first tow years of medical school was of a lecture-focused system; and this was a very good experience (on the whole).
So, what is the rationale of lecture teaching?
*
The basis is that the lecture is a one-to-many method of education.
This is appropriate when the teaching has a large 'common' element which it is desired to be imparted to all students. Lectures would be no good if each student was pursuing an utterly different path, nor would they make much sense if all knowledge and understanding was regarded as 'optional'.
The lecture comes into its own as a form when there is a core of knowledge and understanding which it is intended that all of a group of students ought to share.
*
The lecture begins to break down, and become dysfunctional when there is too great a diversity of people in the class - too wide a range of motivation and ability.
(This break down of the educational process is, however, only apparent when there is a valid and precise method of examination. Otherwise it is easy to fool yourself that 'education is taking place'.)
*
Even at the best, a lecture can realistically only hope to satisfy about two thirds to three quarters of a class - some will find it too slow and dull, others too fast and difficult.
On any given day, some will be having a bad day (distracted, ill, worried, uninterested, uncomprehending...) and the lecturer may be having a bad day for similar reasons.
The best conditions for lecturing are when (among other pre-requisites) the majority of the class are attentive and want to understand and learn the material being presented; and this best applies when there is a good reason for the class to want to learn the material.
A proximate 'good reason' may be to pass the exams - that is necessary, but artificial; but the best reason (which leads to pressure tending to stimulate the best teaching) is that the class wants to learn the material in order to use it.
This is, indeed, the context for all the best higher and specialized education. Lacking which, teaching almost inevitably gravitates to being 'all about exams' - which pressure leads to inflation of qualifications, erosion of standards, and on a long-term basis allows non-teaching to masquerade as the real thing.
*
The lecture is not the ideal form of teaching - that is the prolonged one-to-one apprenticeship.
But the lecture has been found to be a very useful form of teaching (for certain purposes, within certain constraints) for many hundreds of years, and it has not been superseded by anything superior.
Indeed, there have been times and places in history when the lecture became the focus for teaching; and some of these times and places have been near the summit of educational excellence; for example medieval Paris or Oxford, of the 'Scottish Enlightenment' universities of the eighteenth century; both of which were lecture-focused systems, although with different forms of lecture.
Indeed, my own experience of the first tow years of medical school was of a lecture-focused system; and this was a very good experience (on the whole).
So, what is the rationale of lecture teaching?
*
The basis is that the lecture is a one-to-many method of education.
This is appropriate when the teaching has a large 'common' element which it is desired to be imparted to all students. Lectures would be no good if each student was pursuing an utterly different path, nor would they make much sense if all knowledge and understanding was regarded as 'optional'.
The lecture comes into its own as a form when there is a core of knowledge and understanding which it is intended that all of a group of students ought to share.
*
The lecture begins to break down, and become dysfunctional when there is too great a diversity of people in the class - too wide a range of motivation and ability.
(This break down of the educational process is, however, only apparent when there is a valid and precise method of examination. Otherwise it is easy to fool yourself that 'education is taking place'.)
*
Even at the best, a lecture can realistically only hope to satisfy about two thirds to three quarters of a class - some will find it too slow and dull, others too fast and difficult.
On any given day, some will be having a bad day (distracted, ill, worried, uninterested, uncomprehending...) and the lecturer may be having a bad day for similar reasons.
The best conditions for lecturing are when (among other pre-requisites) the majority of the class are attentive and want to understand and learn the material being presented; and this best applies when there is a good reason for the class to want to learn the material.
A proximate 'good reason' may be to pass the exams - that is necessary, but artificial; but the best reason (which leads to pressure tending to stimulate the best teaching) is that the class wants to learn the material in order to use it.
This is, indeed, the context for all the best higher and specialized education. Lacking which, teaching almost inevitably gravitates to being 'all about exams' - which pressure leads to inflation of qualifications, erosion of standards, and on a long-term basis allows non-teaching to masquerade as the real thing.
*
Tuesday 5 August 2014
Loki and Thor (in Marvel comics)
*
One striking aspect of the villain Loki in the early Marvel comics, was that Loki was Thor's half brother and also a god. So Loki was 'family' and also could not be killed (at least, not until the end of all things).
So when Loki became a rebel against the authority of God (Odin), became consumed by pride, and overwhelmed by resentment and jealousy against Thor; and when he began to derive his main satisfactions form 'mischief' - tormenting people destruction, disorder...
Well, there was no way of solving this problem once for all. Loki could be 'contained' but never stopped.
All that Thor, and the other gods, could do was serially to defeat Loki's plans one by one, heal his destructions one by one - and try and try again to persuade Loki of the error of his ways by logical demonstration, periods of punishment, exile, explanations, and even by showing him Love... pretty much everything gets tried at one time or another.
As a child I found this very frustrating. I wanted Loki to be sorted-out. Now I appreciate the deep realism of Loki's indestructible malice.
In the end it is up to Loki. Nothing can force him to change, nothing can force him to abandon resentment and hatred as his core satisfactions, nothing can force him to recognize that he is his own worst enemy (as well as everybody else's worst enemy).
Indeed Loki is Loki's only real enemy.
*
One striking aspect of the villain Loki in the early Marvel comics, was that Loki was Thor's half brother and also a god. So Loki was 'family' and also could not be killed (at least, not until the end of all things).
So when Loki became a rebel against the authority of God (Odin), became consumed by pride, and overwhelmed by resentment and jealousy against Thor; and when he began to derive his main satisfactions form 'mischief' - tormenting people destruction, disorder...
Well, there was no way of solving this problem once for all. Loki could be 'contained' but never stopped.
All that Thor, and the other gods, could do was serially to defeat Loki's plans one by one, heal his destructions one by one - and try and try again to persuade Loki of the error of his ways by logical demonstration, periods of punishment, exile, explanations, and even by showing him Love... pretty much everything gets tried at one time or another.
As a child I found this very frustrating. I wanted Loki to be sorted-out. Now I appreciate the deep realism of Loki's indestructible malice.
In the end it is up to Loki. Nothing can force him to change, nothing can force him to abandon resentment and hatred as his core satisfactions, nothing can force him to recognize that he is his own worst enemy (as well as everybody else's worst enemy).
Indeed Loki is Loki's only real enemy.
*
Monday 4 August 2014
Whatever happened to DH Lawrence?
*
Back in the 1970s and 80s, DH Lawrence was the big man.
Lawrence had been endorsed as one of The Great Tradition by FR Leavis (most influential British critic of the century) with the select company of Henry James, Jos Conrad, Jane Austen and George Eliot. The unsavoury antics of the obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley's lover in 1960 opened the sexual revolution for England. Even his poems were taught at school. A friend who edited a literary and humanities journal told me that fully half of the submissions were about Lawrence.
Lawrence was indeed the figurehead of the radicals in the culture war of sex versus Christianity. But it all seems terribly dated now - because although Lawrence preached and depicted a kind of sexual liberation; this was in what - to the modern politically correct Left - looks like a very traditional, indeed reactionary, set of values; not least a violent pagan mysticism which is taken way too seriously for modern tastes.
I read reasonably widely in Lawrence, but was never grabbed by anything except the book Women in Love; which I still regard as a superb achievement in parts. The writing rises to a very high level at times, and becomes an inextricable part of the novel's message.
Its greatest achievement is - for those who can respond to the style - not just to depict, but to draw the reader inside the perspective of an uber-romantic, hyper-sensitive, ultra-intense way of thinking in which (it is hoped or hinted) all problems are swept aside and transcended by the primacy of here-and-now absorption.
*
I would summarize Lawrence's 'problem' as the question of how to live an engaged and purposeful life without God, without marriage and without a family - he showed how momentary and detached success in the endeavour could be attained; but he failed to discover in his won life, or to depict in fiction or poetry, a real answer - because, of course, there is none.
Lawrences 'message' is impossible, disastrous even - as we now recognize; but it did take the problem seriously. Lawrence was a serious writer - even if he was also on the edge of ridiculous. Literary culture did not go beyond Lawrence, did not leave him behind because he was not good enough - it subsided back from Lawrence because he was too good.
*
At his best: On the edge - but not quite over the edge.
Here is a favourite passage, that recalls to me my own bursting, yearning desire for Lawrentian absorption - and recollections of moments when it was attained (for better and worse).
**
He stood staring at the water. Then he stooped and picked up a stone, which he threw sharply at the pond. Ursula was aware of the bright moon leaping and swaying, all distorted, in her eyes. It seemed to shoot out arms of fire like a cuttle-fish, like a luminous polyp, palpitating strongly before her.
And his shadow on the border of the pond, was watching for a few moments, then he stooped and groped on the ground. Then again there was a burst of sound, and a burst of brilliant light, the moon had exploded on the water, and was flying asunder in flakes of white and dangerous fire. Rapidly, like white birds, the fires all broken rose across the pond, fleeing in clamorous confusion, battling with the flock of dark waves that were forcing their way in. The furthest waves of light, fleeing out, seemed to be clamouring against the shore for escape, the waves of darkness came in heavily, running under towards the centre. But at the centre, the heart of all, was still a vivid, incandescent quivering of a white moon not quite destroyed, a white body of fire writhing and striving and not even now broken open, not yet violated. It seemed to be drawing itself together with strange, violent pangs, in blind effort. It was getting stronger, it was re-asserting itself, the inviolable moon. And the rays were hastening in in thin lines of light, to return to the strengthened moon, that shook upon the water in triumphant reassumption.
Birkin stood and watched, motionless, till the pond was almost calm, the moon was almost serene. Then, satisfied of so much, he looked for more stones. She felt his invisible tenacity. And in a moment again, the broken lights scattered in explosion over her face, dazzling her; and then, almost immediately, came the second shot. The moon leapt up white and burst through the air. Darts of bright light shot asunder, darkness swept over the centre. There was no moon, only a battlefield of broken lights and shadows, running close together. Shadows, dark and heavy, struck again and again across the place where the heart of the moon had been, obliterating it altogether. The white fragments pulsed up and down, and could not find where to go, apart and brilliant on the water like the petals of a rose that a wind has blown far and wide.
Yet again, they were flickering their way to the centre, finding the path blindly, enviously. And again, all was still, as Birkin and Ursula watched. The waters were loud on the shore. He saw the moon regathering itself insidiously, saw the heart of the rose intertwining vigorously and blindly, calling back the scattered fragments, winning home the fragments, in a pulse and in effort of return.
And he was not satisfied. Like a madness, he must go on. He got large stones, and threw them, one after the other, at the white-burning centre of the moon, till there was nothing but a rocking of hollow noise, and a pond surged up, no moon any more, only a few broken flakes tangled and glittering broadcast in the darkness, without aim or meaning, a darkened confusion, like a black and white kaleidoscope tossed at random. The hollow night was rocking and crashing with noise, and from the sluice came sharp, regular flashes of sound. Flakes of light appeared here and there, glittering tormented among the shadows, far off, in strange places; among the dripping shadow of the willow on the island. Birkin stood and listened and was satisfied.
http://www.classicreader.com/book/979/19/
*
Back in the 1970s and 80s, DH Lawrence was the big man.
Lawrence had been endorsed as one of The Great Tradition by FR Leavis (most influential British critic of the century) with the select company of Henry James, Jos Conrad, Jane Austen and George Eliot. The unsavoury antics of the obscenity trial of Lady Chatterley's lover in 1960 opened the sexual revolution for England. Even his poems were taught at school. A friend who edited a literary and humanities journal told me that fully half of the submissions were about Lawrence.
Lawrence was indeed the figurehead of the radicals in the culture war of sex versus Christianity. But it all seems terribly dated now - because although Lawrence preached and depicted a kind of sexual liberation; this was in what - to the modern politically correct Left - looks like a very traditional, indeed reactionary, set of values; not least a violent pagan mysticism which is taken way too seriously for modern tastes.
I read reasonably widely in Lawrence, but was never grabbed by anything except the book Women in Love; which I still regard as a superb achievement in parts. The writing rises to a very high level at times, and becomes an inextricable part of the novel's message.
Its greatest achievement is - for those who can respond to the style - not just to depict, but to draw the reader inside the perspective of an uber-romantic, hyper-sensitive, ultra-intense way of thinking in which (it is hoped or hinted) all problems are swept aside and transcended by the primacy of here-and-now absorption.
*
I would summarize Lawrence's 'problem' as the question of how to live an engaged and purposeful life without God, without marriage and without a family - he showed how momentary and detached success in the endeavour could be attained; but he failed to discover in his won life, or to depict in fiction or poetry, a real answer - because, of course, there is none.
Lawrences 'message' is impossible, disastrous even - as we now recognize; but it did take the problem seriously. Lawrence was a serious writer - even if he was also on the edge of ridiculous. Literary culture did not go beyond Lawrence, did not leave him behind because he was not good enough - it subsided back from Lawrence because he was too good.
*
At his best: On the edge - but not quite over the edge.
Here is a favourite passage, that recalls to me my own bursting, yearning desire for Lawrentian absorption - and recollections of moments when it was attained (for better and worse).
**
He stood staring at the water. Then he stooped and picked up a stone, which he threw sharply at the pond. Ursula was aware of the bright moon leaping and swaying, all distorted, in her eyes. It seemed to shoot out arms of fire like a cuttle-fish, like a luminous polyp, palpitating strongly before her.
And his shadow on the border of the pond, was watching for a few moments, then he stooped and groped on the ground. Then again there was a burst of sound, and a burst of brilliant light, the moon had exploded on the water, and was flying asunder in flakes of white and dangerous fire. Rapidly, like white birds, the fires all broken rose across the pond, fleeing in clamorous confusion, battling with the flock of dark waves that were forcing their way in. The furthest waves of light, fleeing out, seemed to be clamouring against the shore for escape, the waves of darkness came in heavily, running under towards the centre. But at the centre, the heart of all, was still a vivid, incandescent quivering of a white moon not quite destroyed, a white body of fire writhing and striving and not even now broken open, not yet violated. It seemed to be drawing itself together with strange, violent pangs, in blind effort. It was getting stronger, it was re-asserting itself, the inviolable moon. And the rays were hastening in in thin lines of light, to return to the strengthened moon, that shook upon the water in triumphant reassumption.
Birkin stood and watched, motionless, till the pond was almost calm, the moon was almost serene. Then, satisfied of so much, he looked for more stones. She felt his invisible tenacity. And in a moment again, the broken lights scattered in explosion over her face, dazzling her; and then, almost immediately, came the second shot. The moon leapt up white and burst through the air. Darts of bright light shot asunder, darkness swept over the centre. There was no moon, only a battlefield of broken lights and shadows, running close together. Shadows, dark and heavy, struck again and again across the place where the heart of the moon had been, obliterating it altogether. The white fragments pulsed up and down, and could not find where to go, apart and brilliant on the water like the petals of a rose that a wind has blown far and wide.
Yet again, they were flickering their way to the centre, finding the path blindly, enviously. And again, all was still, as Birkin and Ursula watched. The waters were loud on the shore. He saw the moon regathering itself insidiously, saw the heart of the rose intertwining vigorously and blindly, calling back the scattered fragments, winning home the fragments, in a pulse and in effort of return.
And he was not satisfied. Like a madness, he must go on. He got large stones, and threw them, one after the other, at the white-burning centre of the moon, till there was nothing but a rocking of hollow noise, and a pond surged up, no moon any more, only a few broken flakes tangled and glittering broadcast in the darkness, without aim or meaning, a darkened confusion, like a black and white kaleidoscope tossed at random. The hollow night was rocking and crashing with noise, and from the sluice came sharp, regular flashes of sound. Flakes of light appeared here and there, glittering tormented among the shadows, far off, in strange places; among the dripping shadow of the willow on the island. Birkin stood and listened and was satisfied.
http://www.classicreader.com/book/979/19/
*
Sunday 3 August 2014
CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man - true prophecy always happens with a twist
*
The Abolition of Man was a series of lectures given by CS Lewis in 1943 about half a mile from where I am sitting as I write this; Walter Hooper, Lewis's greatest editor, regards them as Lewis's best and most important non-fiction writing (and a companion to the novel That Hideous Strength).
If you have not read it, you should - here it is:
https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229
*
The three linked essays are studded with extraordinary insights and predictions.
Lewis really was an inspired prophet at times; but - as always - genuine prophecies come true in unanticipated ways.
According to Lewis, the 'abolition' of man comes when an elite of 'conditioners' use scientific methods to shape human psychology as they think fit. Initially they may do this for some goal such as efficiency, or in line with scientific ideals - but very quickly their own effectiveness will undermine all strategic principles (including all morality) until they are guided merely by the whim of the moment - there being nothing that is regarded as more fundamental than whatever happens to be their currently dominating emotion.
*
This is - of course - precisely what has happened in our world dominated by an ever-more pervasive and ever-more addictive mass media - but with the twist that the conditioning is working at an indescribably more trivial level than could be imagined 70 years ago.
The masses are conditioned into a frenzied-zombie state of transient stimulations, momentary distractions, cynicism alternating with grandstanding moral poses.
A world of liars lying about their own lies; then lying to cover their tracks.
*
We don't feel oppressed because modernity is invisible to us.
I don't think an accurate and exciting and thought-provoking 'warning' novel could be written about the modern condition, in the way of That Hideous Strength.
Indeed, modern life cannot be depicted realistically on truthfully in a movie, TV series, comic, or as an opera; it cannot be depicted at all! - because any depiction of the way things have actually turned-out would be unbelievable, too dull and pointless and incoherent to sustain audience interest or attention - let alone to persuade them of its validity.
*
The Abolition of Man was a series of lectures given by CS Lewis in 1943 about half a mile from where I am sitting as I write this; Walter Hooper, Lewis's greatest editor, regards them as Lewis's best and most important non-fiction writing (and a companion to the novel That Hideous Strength).
If you have not read it, you should - here it is:
https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229
*
The three linked essays are studded with extraordinary insights and predictions.
Lewis really was an inspired prophet at times; but - as always - genuine prophecies come true in unanticipated ways.
According to Lewis, the 'abolition' of man comes when an elite of 'conditioners' use scientific methods to shape human psychology as they think fit. Initially they may do this for some goal such as efficiency, or in line with scientific ideals - but very quickly their own effectiveness will undermine all strategic principles (including all morality) until they are guided merely by the whim of the moment - there being nothing that is regarded as more fundamental than whatever happens to be their currently dominating emotion.
*
This is - of course - precisely what has happened in our world dominated by an ever-more pervasive and ever-more addictive mass media - but with the twist that the conditioning is working at an indescribably more trivial level than could be imagined 70 years ago.
The masses are conditioned into a frenzied-zombie state of transient stimulations, momentary distractions, cynicism alternating with grandstanding moral poses.
A world of liars lying about their own lies; then lying to cover their tracks.
*
We don't feel oppressed because modernity is invisible to us.
I don't think an accurate and exciting and thought-provoking 'warning' novel could be written about the modern condition, in the way of That Hideous Strength.
Indeed, modern life cannot be depicted realistically on truthfully in a movie, TV series, comic, or as an opera; it cannot be depicted at all! - because any depiction of the way things have actually turned-out would be unbelievable, too dull and pointless and incoherent to sustain audience interest or attention - let alone to persuade them of its validity.
*
Saturday 2 August 2014
Review of Beyond a Boundary by CLR James - jointly best sports book in my pantheon
*
(Note - the other best sports book I have read is reviewed here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/one-of-best-books-i-have-ever-read.html)
*
If you love cricket, you will already have heard of Beyond a Boundary by the black Trinidadian writer, CLR James (1901-1989) - but otherwise you may not have. It is a one-off wonderful book, with 'something about it', probably the style itself, which I have described as intoxicating.
If you read a biography, there is so much against CLR James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._L._R._James) that it is utterly amazing how he was able to write a masterpiece. Indeed, until I contributed to the Wikipedia entry, cricket was not even mentioned - the focus was entirely on James's revolutionary communism, black nationalism and the rest of it.
But James was brought up under the British Empire, in a Public School ethos for which he had an immediate and lasting affinity and never discarded; and this is one major reason for his success with Beyond a Boundary, which contains vivid and memorable accounts of such Victorian luminaries as Thomas Arnold (of Rugby School), William Makepeace Thackeray (author of the novel Vanity Fair) and WG Grace (the most famous and influential cricketer of all time).
James's writings on race in Trinidad are fascinating, and would probably be a revelation to Americans, I have little doubt - whose supposed 'one drop' definition of 'blackness' was both bizarre and unique in world history: Trinidad was much more representative of how multiracial societies used to organize things.
The social status in Trinidad was organized by shades of blackness - but modified by wealth, talent, beauty and other factors. For instance, James was a dark skinned black, for whom the cricket club was Shannon; but as he was very skilled at cricket (and also an academically-gifted scholarship boy at his private school) - therefore he was invited to play for the lighter-skinned 'mulatto' cricket club Maple - and (after a crisis of conscience) he accepted the invitation.
Later, James was a secretary to the great all-rounder black Cricketer (lawyer and politician) Learie Constantine - who in the 1930s played as the professional in the club Nelson in the Lancashire Leagues (as well as being a nationally known figure back in Trinidad and also famous in England) - the two of them were just-about the only black men in Lancashire (the county which is focused on Manchester, and which forms the third largest and densest centre of population in England).
The whole book is an education and an enchantment in terms of its purity of idealism and lyrical celebration of cricket as the epitome of the best of Victorian values; and a mine of arcane information.
*
(Note - the other best sports book I have read is reviewed here: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/one-of-best-books-i-have-ever-read.html)
*
If you love cricket, you will already have heard of Beyond a Boundary by the black Trinidadian writer, CLR James (1901-1989) - but otherwise you may not have. It is a one-off wonderful book, with 'something about it', probably the style itself, which I have described as intoxicating.
If you read a biography, there is so much against CLR James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._L._R._James) that it is utterly amazing how he was able to write a masterpiece. Indeed, until I contributed to the Wikipedia entry, cricket was not even mentioned - the focus was entirely on James's revolutionary communism, black nationalism and the rest of it.
But James was brought up under the British Empire, in a Public School ethos for which he had an immediate and lasting affinity and never discarded; and this is one major reason for his success with Beyond a Boundary, which contains vivid and memorable accounts of such Victorian luminaries as Thomas Arnold (of Rugby School), William Makepeace Thackeray (author of the novel Vanity Fair) and WG Grace (the most famous and influential cricketer of all time).
James's writings on race in Trinidad are fascinating, and would probably be a revelation to Americans, I have little doubt - whose supposed 'one drop' definition of 'blackness' was both bizarre and unique in world history: Trinidad was much more representative of how multiracial societies used to organize things.
The social status in Trinidad was organized by shades of blackness - but modified by wealth, talent, beauty and other factors. For instance, James was a dark skinned black, for whom the cricket club was Shannon; but as he was very skilled at cricket (and also an academically-gifted scholarship boy at his private school) - therefore he was invited to play for the lighter-skinned 'mulatto' cricket club Maple - and (after a crisis of conscience) he accepted the invitation.
Later, James was a secretary to the great all-rounder black Cricketer (lawyer and politician) Learie Constantine - who in the 1930s played as the professional in the club Nelson in the Lancashire Leagues (as well as being a nationally known figure back in Trinidad and also famous in England) - the two of them were just-about the only black men in Lancashire (the county which is focused on Manchester, and which forms the third largest and densest centre of population in England).
The whole book is an education and an enchantment in terms of its purity of idealism and lyrical celebration of cricket as the epitome of the best of Victorian values; and a mine of arcane information.
*
What would convince modern people of the divinity of Christ? What would answer their major fears?
*
Divine Accommodation: "God's revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend." - Rodney Stark, Discovering God - 2008, p6.
Stark's idea is that Christ's incarnation was a divine revelation that had the features necessary to convince people of his divinity, in the Jewish and Pagan context of that era. This is why Christ was presented as primarily a sacrifice and a propitiation, because of the then-current focus on sacrifice and propitiation - especially among Pagans, but also Jews. That was why there was a focus on the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy (to convince the Jews), and on miracles of healing (to convince pagans). People understood that death was not the end, but were terrified about what might happen after death.
*
I found this idea pregnant when I revisited it recently, I mean the idea that God works in the context of the time; when I considered how relatively ineffective this focus would be (and is?) in the modern context of 2000 years later - because modern culture is not concerned with sacrifice and propitiation, disbelieves or is indifferent to prophecy, and regards healing as a medical-scientific (or perhaps 'psychosomatic') affair.
If Christ had been incarnated into the modern world and needed to prove his divinity (silly idea, I know), or if a modern prophet wanted to proclaim the message of Christ, then it would simply be ineffective to focus on sacrifice, prophecy and healing. People would not be interested - most importantly, people would not be convinced - because these are not modern concerns.
*
So, what would be the equivalent focus? What are the concerns of modern people? If Romans around 30 AD were afraid of God/ the gods, then what are we afraid of?
Well, my understanding of 'the modern predicament' is that it is related to three main deficiencies which are, at root, not so much beliefs as fears: and they relate to purpose, meaning and relationship.
1. Purpose: Moderns have come to fear that life and the world are going nowhere, that there is no destiny or direction.
2. Meaning: Moderns have come to fear that nothing means anything, it is all just cause-and-effect. Stuff happens!
3. Relationship: Moderns fear that each is ultimately alone, that there is nothing real that is binding humans, there is no genuine communication, and that the rest of the world is dead.
So, divine revelations for modernity would tend to accommodate to these current fears and concerns - to explain (presumably in a single and interlinked package) the direction of human life, and to emphasize that each person is not alone in the world - but actually and always embedded in a network of relationships and communications.
*
Perhaps this modern predicament or primary concern can all be summarized by the dominance of each person's fear of the insignificance and isolation of his own, specific life.
The message of Christ to modern people would perhaps need to be addressed to this - to accommodate to this; such that every individual could appreciate it as an explanation of the unique necessity and meaning and purpose of my own particular life in relationship to other people's lives, and the world as a whole.
*
Divine Accommodation: "God's revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend." - Rodney Stark, Discovering God - 2008, p6.
Stark's idea is that Christ's incarnation was a divine revelation that had the features necessary to convince people of his divinity, in the Jewish and Pagan context of that era. This is why Christ was presented as primarily a sacrifice and a propitiation, because of the then-current focus on sacrifice and propitiation - especially among Pagans, but also Jews. That was why there was a focus on the fulfilment of Jewish prophecy (to convince the Jews), and on miracles of healing (to convince pagans). People understood that death was not the end, but were terrified about what might happen after death.
*
I found this idea pregnant when I revisited it recently, I mean the idea that God works in the context of the time; when I considered how relatively ineffective this focus would be (and is?) in the modern context of 2000 years later - because modern culture is not concerned with sacrifice and propitiation, disbelieves or is indifferent to prophecy, and regards healing as a medical-scientific (or perhaps 'psychosomatic') affair.
If Christ had been incarnated into the modern world and needed to prove his divinity (silly idea, I know), or if a modern prophet wanted to proclaim the message of Christ, then it would simply be ineffective to focus on sacrifice, prophecy and healing. People would not be interested - most importantly, people would not be convinced - because these are not modern concerns.
*
So, what would be the equivalent focus? What are the concerns of modern people? If Romans around 30 AD were afraid of God/ the gods, then what are we afraid of?
Well, my understanding of 'the modern predicament' is that it is related to three main deficiencies which are, at root, not so much beliefs as fears: and they relate to purpose, meaning and relationship.
1. Purpose: Moderns have come to fear that life and the world are going nowhere, that there is no destiny or direction.
2. Meaning: Moderns have come to fear that nothing means anything, it is all just cause-and-effect. Stuff happens!
3. Relationship: Moderns fear that each is ultimately alone, that there is nothing real that is binding humans, there is no genuine communication, and that the rest of the world is dead.
So, divine revelations for modernity would tend to accommodate to these current fears and concerns - to explain (presumably in a single and interlinked package) the direction of human life, and to emphasize that each person is not alone in the world - but actually and always embedded in a network of relationships and communications.
*
Perhaps this modern predicament or primary concern can all be summarized by the dominance of each person's fear of the insignificance and isolation of his own, specific life.
The message of Christ to modern people would perhaps need to be addressed to this - to accommodate to this; such that every individual could appreciate it as an explanation of the unique necessity and meaning and purpose of my own particular life in relationship to other people's lives, and the world as a whole.
*
Friday 1 August 2014
Determinism (like relativism) is implanted by modern culture, and then feared (neither inferred nor discovered)
*
I think that thoughtful people who disbelieve in free will recognize that this cannot be argued, but they can non-irrationally assume (or fear) that it is true nonetheless - and I think this is the real problem with this debate.
You cannot coherently argue that there is no free will, because in an universe where everything is determined by what went before, there is no such thing as an argument - I mean, the outcome of everything is predetermined by what went before, so what appears to be an argument is just more of the same cause and effect stuff.
To a determinist, the argument in favour of free will is a delusion just like they say that my intuition that I have free will is a delusion.
*
So, the belief that humans cannot really choose, but only believe that they can choose, is a belief that cannot be argued-for - not really.
However, it is possible to believe that the universe is totally determined, that there is no free will, no real choice, and that there are no such things as autonomy or agency whereby entities can be independent of the web of causality.
(Because that is what free will entails: it entails people are un-caused causes, un-moved movers - it entails that choice, action is not determined by what went before, but is autonomous from the preceding causes.)
*
So, a person may believe this, inside their heads as it were - believe that that is the way the universe is set-up; where everything that happens happens only because of what happened before; and that everything else (purpose, teleology, meaning, realtionships, knowledge...) are delusions which are themselves merely a consequence of the way things are set up.
This is, I think, the same phenomenon as relativism. The majority of Western 'educated' people nowadays are relativists - they explicitly repudiate moral values, absolute truth, objective beauty... but this cannot coherently be argued (because if 'everything is relative', then so is the claim that 'everything is relative).
*
Nonetheless, although determinism and relativism cannot be argued, they can be believed - more to the point - they can be feared to be true.
And I think this is the significance of these phenomena. People - en masse - indeed it is a defining feature of our current 'civilization' - fear that determinism is true (whatever they think about it), fear that relativism is true (whatever they think about it).
Our culture is in the grip of this fear. Our culture assumes that determinism and relativism are true - the assumptions are built-into public discourse.
But why?
*
Determinism and relativism are not things that people have inferred by logical reasoning - that makes no rational sense; nor discovered by scientific, historical or any other kind of empirical investigation - that makes no sense either.
(How could you 'discover' that the process of discovery was predetermined? Nonsense. How could you discover that science is relative?)
No - these things - determinism, relativism - cannot be inferred or discovered.
Neither are they natural or spontaneous beliefs: people are not born believing in relativism and determinism: quite the opposite! We are born spontaneously and naturally believing in absolute objectivity; and with a belief in our own free will, agency, ability to choose.
Everything suggests that they are planted by modern culture.
*
They are planted in the mind, they do not make logical or empirical sense - BUT they do cause fear, despondency, nihilism; because we fear they may be true yet we cannot prove to ourselves (or anybody else) that they are not true.
They do not make logical or scientific sense - but logic and science cannot get rid of them, because determinism and relativism destroys the validity of logic, and science lacks the capacity to influence metaphysics (science is within metaphysics - science cannot test metaphysical assumptions).
*
Determinism and relativism are ideas planted in the minds of Men by modern culture - as one might plant a cancer or an infection - and there they fester.
Once implanted they are hard to get rid of - people suspect, people fear, that these ideas may be true and they cannot prove they are not true.
So, there they sit, and grow and grow - destroying all purpose, meaning and relationship.
*
Ideas like determinism and relativism are a great way to destroy - wholesale.
They can destroy everything positive, everything good - including (eventually) all religions, ideologies, human relationships, possibilities for cohesive action.
They are a great way to make people afraid, depressed, despondent, anxious, unconfident, lazy, purposeless, directionless, short-termist and hedonistic, callous, self-indulgent and the rest of it.
*
Modern culture does this.
But why does modern culture do this?
Why would it be considered desirable actively to plant such demoralizing ideas into people minds -to defend and propagate these ideas - ideas that tend to grow and destroy, while being irrefutable?
Why indeed?
*
It does not make human sense!
I infer, then, that these ideas are not humanly motivated but have been strategically promoted, pushed out from from behind the scenes, by supernatural purposive evil.
In other words, it seems that these are demonic ideas - ideas which are actually created and disseminated on the basis that they are intrinsically and deliberately destructive. Destruction is the whole point!
A culture which deliberately implants and celebrates ideas like determinism and relativism does not make human sense; but it does make Satanic sense.
*
I think that thoughtful people who disbelieve in free will recognize that this cannot be argued, but they can non-irrationally assume (or fear) that it is true nonetheless - and I think this is the real problem with this debate.
You cannot coherently argue that there is no free will, because in an universe where everything is determined by what went before, there is no such thing as an argument - I mean, the outcome of everything is predetermined by what went before, so what appears to be an argument is just more of the same cause and effect stuff.
To a determinist, the argument in favour of free will is a delusion just like they say that my intuition that I have free will is a delusion.
*
So, the belief that humans cannot really choose, but only believe that they can choose, is a belief that cannot be argued-for - not really.
However, it is possible to believe that the universe is totally determined, that there is no free will, no real choice, and that there are no such things as autonomy or agency whereby entities can be independent of the web of causality.
(Because that is what free will entails: it entails people are un-caused causes, un-moved movers - it entails that choice, action is not determined by what went before, but is autonomous from the preceding causes.)
*
So, a person may believe this, inside their heads as it were - believe that that is the way the universe is set-up; where everything that happens happens only because of what happened before; and that everything else (purpose, teleology, meaning, realtionships, knowledge...) are delusions which are themselves merely a consequence of the way things are set up.
This is, I think, the same phenomenon as relativism. The majority of Western 'educated' people nowadays are relativists - they explicitly repudiate moral values, absolute truth, objective beauty... but this cannot coherently be argued (because if 'everything is relative', then so is the claim that 'everything is relative).
*
Nonetheless, although determinism and relativism cannot be argued, they can be believed - more to the point - they can be feared to be true.
And I think this is the significance of these phenomena. People - en masse - indeed it is a defining feature of our current 'civilization' - fear that determinism is true (whatever they think about it), fear that relativism is true (whatever they think about it).
Our culture is in the grip of this fear. Our culture assumes that determinism and relativism are true - the assumptions are built-into public discourse.
But why?
*
Determinism and relativism are not things that people have inferred by logical reasoning - that makes no rational sense; nor discovered by scientific, historical or any other kind of empirical investigation - that makes no sense either.
(How could you 'discover' that the process of discovery was predetermined? Nonsense. How could you discover that science is relative?)
No - these things - determinism, relativism - cannot be inferred or discovered.
Neither are they natural or spontaneous beliefs: people are not born believing in relativism and determinism: quite the opposite! We are born spontaneously and naturally believing in absolute objectivity; and with a belief in our own free will, agency, ability to choose.
Everything suggests that they are planted by modern culture.
*
They are planted in the mind, they do not make logical or empirical sense - BUT they do cause fear, despondency, nihilism; because we fear they may be true yet we cannot prove to ourselves (or anybody else) that they are not true.
They do not make logical or scientific sense - but logic and science cannot get rid of them, because determinism and relativism destroys the validity of logic, and science lacks the capacity to influence metaphysics (science is within metaphysics - science cannot test metaphysical assumptions).
*
Determinism and relativism are ideas planted in the minds of Men by modern culture - as one might plant a cancer or an infection - and there they fester.
Once implanted they are hard to get rid of - people suspect, people fear, that these ideas may be true and they cannot prove they are not true.
So, there they sit, and grow and grow - destroying all purpose, meaning and relationship.
*
Ideas like determinism and relativism are a great way to destroy - wholesale.
They can destroy everything positive, everything good - including (eventually) all religions, ideologies, human relationships, possibilities for cohesive action.
They are a great way to make people afraid, depressed, despondent, anxious, unconfident, lazy, purposeless, directionless, short-termist and hedonistic, callous, self-indulgent and the rest of it.
*
Modern culture does this.
But why does modern culture do this?
Why would it be considered desirable actively to plant such demoralizing ideas into people minds -to defend and propagate these ideas - ideas that tend to grow and destroy, while being irrefutable?
Why indeed?
*
It does not make human sense!
I infer, then, that these ideas are not humanly motivated but have been strategically promoted, pushed out from from behind the scenes, by supernatural purposive evil.
In other words, it seems that these are demonic ideas - ideas which are actually created and disseminated on the basis that they are intrinsically and deliberately destructive. Destruction is the whole point!
A culture which deliberately implants and celebrates ideas like determinism and relativism does not make human sense; but it does make Satanic sense.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)