*
The Law in modern secular Western democracies is a good example of 'not even trying'.
It used be be assumed that 1. Laws should be moral; 2. Laws should be coherent.
If Laws are moral and coherent then it is Good to obey them (while acknowledging that Law is not the highest morality, and being both partial and systematic Laws sometimes are not moral and coherent - hence the need for God, Judges, and mercy).
But it is about fifty years since The West abandoned this religious concept of Law; and the real Law began to unravel. Now The Law is not even trying to be moral and coherent.
Now, Laws are not moral, because there is no morality - morality is contextual and contingent hence unreal; and Laws are not coherent, because coherence is not acknowledged as necessary, nor even as Good.
Now Laws are just Laws, and they are not based on anything solid, they are not a consensus, they can change open-endedly, the contradict each other, we are all doing illegal things every moment of every day, disobedience to many laws is openly advocated and praised... yet in some situations some people are supposed to obey some Laws... Or Else.
This is the situation- The Law is not trying to be moral nor is it trying to be coherent; and this situation is justified on the basis that there is no morality and no requirement for coherence; so fundamentally what is now called Law is a fake, that is only related to real Law at the level of evolving social institutions.
*
Note: The situation of living under a fake system of Law is generally unnoticed because people do not discriminate between a real but imperfect system of Law- which has the correct and necessary ideals and aspirations but fails to execute them perfectly is has flaws and corruptions; and, on the other hand, a fundamentally fake or pseudo-system of Law, which cannot be described as corrupt or flawed because it lack any concept of purity or perfection. Between these, there is all the difference in the world.
Monday 10 November 2014
Sunday 9 November 2014
God and Men and Life
*
Christianity should not be presented as a matter of God doing things to Men...
But, instead, as a personal relationship between God and each Man...
And a relationship in which each Man's personal will, choices, and actions are a real and central and necessary part.
*
Thus the human condition of incarnate, mortal earthly Life should not be presented as something done to us - not as a reward, nor as a punishment - but primarily as a (mutually-agreed) context for personal relationship.
*
Christianity should not be presented as a matter of God doing things to Men...
But, instead, as a personal relationship between God and each Man...
And a relationship in which each Man's personal will, choices, and actions are a real and central and necessary part.
*
Thus the human condition of incarnate, mortal earthly Life should not be presented as something done to us - not as a reward, nor as a punishment - but primarily as a (mutually-agreed) context for personal relationship.
*
Word of Wisdom bleg
*
This is an invitation to any Mormon who reads this and lives by the Word of Wisdom to summarise - in their own words - their understanding the role and rationale of these rules for living in the LDS faith.
(Or,if you prefer, e-mail me personally hklaxnessatyahoo.com).
Fully accepting that the WoW rules are necessary for exaltation - I am asking whether the WoW should best be seen as a necessary worldly expedient, or as something fundamental and permanent (or as something else).
By 'necessary worldly expedient', I mean that these rules are necessary here and now and in the world as it is (perhaps as a foundation?) - but not a deep or fundamental or eternal matter in relation to the Plan of Salvation.
Or is the WoW is something more symbolic, or perhaps deeper than this?
*
This is an invitation to any Mormon who reads this and lives by the Word of Wisdom to summarise - in their own words - their understanding the role and rationale of these rules for living in the LDS faith.
(Or,if you prefer, e-mail me personally hklaxnessatyahoo.com).
Fully accepting that the WoW rules are necessary for exaltation - I am asking whether the WoW should best be seen as a necessary worldly expedient, or as something fundamental and permanent (or as something else).
By 'necessary worldly expedient', I mean that these rules are necessary here and now and in the world as it is (perhaps as a foundation?) - but not a deep or fundamental or eternal matter in relation to the Plan of Salvation.
Or is the WoW is something more symbolic, or perhaps deeper than this?
*
Saturday 8 November 2014
Where did Rudolf Steiner go wrong?
*
I have read a couple of books about Rudlof Steiner (1861-1925) the Austrian philosopher and founder of Anthroposophy, and made some effort to sample from some of his scores of books.
I have known of Steiner's for many years - indeed I once visited a friend whose parents ran a Steiner residential home for mentally disabled adults, and it seemed like an excellent institution. Most recently, I have engaged with Steiner's work a little more deeply due to reading Owen Barfield - CS Lewis's best friend, and an Inkling.
Anyway, I think I have now read enough to form some kind of evaluation of Steiner; enough to know that I don't really want to read much more - because I have not got much benefit from him.
*
In the first place, I am convinced Steiner was a real genius. The account of his life makes clear he was a man of really remarkable understanding and ability and creativity - and a gifted leader.
Furthermore, he had an extraordinary spiritual capacity - and an unusual one, in that his spiritual insights seem to have been more or less continuous, and happening in clear and alert consciousness, with full retention of his very logical and thorough analytic intellect.
*
I was surprised to find that Steiner was a Christian, or at least believed himself to be.
In his early forties he had a born-again, personal experience of the central importance of Christ's life and death to the history of everything and the future of man.
Aside from that minimal Christian core, much of the rest that he believed about Christ was... idiosyncractic; but I would say that he was a devout Christian of sorts, for the last main part of his life.
*
But the solid core of insightful Christian mysticism in Steiner, and his range of contributions to alternative medicine, education, horticulture and what-not - are diluted and swamped by all kinds of complicated and systematized details which he regarded as spiritually validated.
A vast quantity of sheerly arbitrary and silly stuff, on every topic under the sun and beyond it, makes-up the bulk of what Steiner wrote (and spoke in thousands of lectures) - mainly in the last 20-25 years of his life.
(I could not summarize this, and even to think about writing about it is embarrassing - if you don't already know, then look it up for yourselves.)
So what went wrong? How did a spiritual genius, and a Christian, come up with this stuff?
*
I think it was because Steiner devised a method.
Spiritual insight was natural to him, and needed no forcing; but Steiner wanted to be able to train everybody else in this method - so he seems to have taught and used a way of 'spiritually' generating answers to any question he wanted to know, or which anybody asked him, on any subject.
Steiner treated himself as if fundamental knowledge of reality was something 'on-tap'. He would merely need to enquire, and out-it-came like a ticker-tape: pedantic, literalistic, systematic, dogmatic stuff - fact upon fact upon fact - filling dozens and dozens of turgid books - take-it-or-leave it.
*
In the end, Steiner made it almost impossible to do anything but accept him as an infallible prophet, or reject him lock-stock-and-barrel.
I enjoyed both books about Steiner, and would recommend them - they were by Colin Wilson and Gary Lachman; but I did not enjoy it when I then turned to Rudolf Steiner himself, and read (or tried to read) the man himself.
My conclusion is that Wilson and Lachman have read Steiner, so I don't have-to.
I am convinced that there are many genuine, inspired insights scattered through Steiner's work - and that he was basically a very good man; but frankly, sifting through the reams and reams of turgid nonsense is just not worth the effort.
*
I have read a couple of books about Rudlof Steiner (1861-1925) the Austrian philosopher and founder of Anthroposophy, and made some effort to sample from some of his scores of books.
I have known of Steiner's for many years - indeed I once visited a friend whose parents ran a Steiner residential home for mentally disabled adults, and it seemed like an excellent institution. Most recently, I have engaged with Steiner's work a little more deeply due to reading Owen Barfield - CS Lewis's best friend, and an Inkling.
Anyway, I think I have now read enough to form some kind of evaluation of Steiner; enough to know that I don't really want to read much more - because I have not got much benefit from him.
*
In the first place, I am convinced Steiner was a real genius. The account of his life makes clear he was a man of really remarkable understanding and ability and creativity - and a gifted leader.
Furthermore, he had an extraordinary spiritual capacity - and an unusual one, in that his spiritual insights seem to have been more or less continuous, and happening in clear and alert consciousness, with full retention of his very logical and thorough analytic intellect.
*
I was surprised to find that Steiner was a Christian, or at least believed himself to be.
In his early forties he had a born-again, personal experience of the central importance of Christ's life and death to the history of everything and the future of man.
Aside from that minimal Christian core, much of the rest that he believed about Christ was... idiosyncractic; but I would say that he was a devout Christian of sorts, for the last main part of his life.
*
But the solid core of insightful Christian mysticism in Steiner, and his range of contributions to alternative medicine, education, horticulture and what-not - are diluted and swamped by all kinds of complicated and systematized details which he regarded as spiritually validated.
A vast quantity of sheerly arbitrary and silly stuff, on every topic under the sun and beyond it, makes-up the bulk of what Steiner wrote (and spoke in thousands of lectures) - mainly in the last 20-25 years of his life.
(I could not summarize this, and even to think about writing about it is embarrassing - if you don't already know, then look it up for yourselves.)
So what went wrong? How did a spiritual genius, and a Christian, come up with this stuff?
*
I think it was because Steiner devised a method.
Spiritual insight was natural to him, and needed no forcing; but Steiner wanted to be able to train everybody else in this method - so he seems to have taught and used a way of 'spiritually' generating answers to any question he wanted to know, or which anybody asked him, on any subject.
Steiner treated himself as if fundamental knowledge of reality was something 'on-tap'. He would merely need to enquire, and out-it-came like a ticker-tape: pedantic, literalistic, systematic, dogmatic stuff - fact upon fact upon fact - filling dozens and dozens of turgid books - take-it-or-leave it.
*
In the end, Steiner made it almost impossible to do anything but accept him as an infallible prophet, or reject him lock-stock-and-barrel.
I enjoyed both books about Steiner, and would recommend them - they were by Colin Wilson and Gary Lachman; but I did not enjoy it when I then turned to Rudolf Steiner himself, and read (or tried to read) the man himself.
My conclusion is that Wilson and Lachman have read Steiner, so I don't have-to.
I am convinced that there are many genuine, inspired insights scattered through Steiner's work - and that he was basically a very good man; but frankly, sifting through the reams and reams of turgid nonsense is just not worth the effort.
*
Willy nilly
*
From Christopher Tolkien's glossary to Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale:
Medieval English possessed special negative forms of some common verbs; see nys, nas, nere, noot [ nys from ne is, is not; nas from ne was, was not; nere from ne were, were it not; noot from ne woot, I do not know]...
The phrase 'willy nilly' still contains one: 'will I, nill I' or whether I wish it or wish it not.
*
The usage appears in Arwen's tragic words beside Aragorn's death bed:
I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nil: the loss and the silence.
*
From Christopher Tolkien's glossary to Chaucer's Nun's Priest's Tale:
Medieval English possessed special negative forms of some common verbs; see nys, nas, nere, noot [ nys from ne is, is not; nas from ne was, was not; nere from ne were, were it not; noot from ne woot, I do not know]...
The phrase 'willy nilly' still contains one: 'will I, nill I' or whether I wish it or wish it not.
*
The usage appears in Arwen's tragic words beside Aragorn's death bed:
I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nil: the loss and the silence.
*
Friday 7 November 2014
What is the biggest threat to Satan's Plan in the modern world? Impatience!
*
While almost the whole of the World is quietly sleepwalking into Hell (and wholly by their own choice - not because they are forced to go there); the biggest of all threats to the success of Satan's plans is the impatience of his most radical and aggressive young slaves, servants and followers.
The biggest threat to the success of Satan's Big Plan is that the sleepwalkers will awaken before they reach their destination; and the most likely way that that will happen is if there is revolution, war, chaos, mass suffering...
Yet, as the forces of darkness get more and more power; this is exactly what Satan's minions want most desperately to inflict: and they want it NOW!
*
Reining-in these young, radical, fire-brands is going to become harder and harder - since they know that The System is covertly on their side, and that they can have all the fun of destruction, of exacerbating and enjoying the opportunities of decline, and of pretending to be brave but suffering minimal personal risk - having, indeed, a high chance of both immediate personal gratification and also eventual establishment embrace.
*
But Satan does not want the sleepwalkers to be woken - because in the long term it is much better for his Big Plan that things be kept soft, comfortable, indefinite, mildly hope-ful for as long as possible; until it really is too late; and then (but only then) will the minor demons and their servants be allowed a field-day - granted (for a while) complete license to slake their vile desires on Men and Women.
*
So, I think we may soon see something which has not been seen for two generations in The West: serious repression of the ultra-Left: a crack-down on the preachers of extreme radicalism and revolution.
For fifty years, the Far-Left have been cosseted and indulged and given status, security and glory; they have functioned as an avant garde for the mainstream progressives - but if they now come to be regarded as threatening the ultimate success of the Big Plan by waking-up the sleepwalkers, then we can anticipate seeing these personnel on the receiving-end of some very tough punishments.
*
Unless, that is, the Adversary himself (and his senior lower-archy) themselves become impatient, and cannot any longer bottle-up their lust for mass misery, torture, starvation, death and destruction.
This is quite likely - as short-termism is natural for evil; one of evil's most potent weapons.
In which case all that and more will happen, in a trice.
And then, the sleepwalkers will - some of them - suddenly awake; and more of them will repent before it is too late.
The horrible truth seems to be that the best 'hope' of the West may be Satan's itchy trigger finger...
*
While almost the whole of the World is quietly sleepwalking into Hell (and wholly by their own choice - not because they are forced to go there); the biggest of all threats to the success of Satan's plans is the impatience of his most radical and aggressive young slaves, servants and followers.
The biggest threat to the success of Satan's Big Plan is that the sleepwalkers will awaken before they reach their destination; and the most likely way that that will happen is if there is revolution, war, chaos, mass suffering...
Yet, as the forces of darkness get more and more power; this is exactly what Satan's minions want most desperately to inflict: and they want it NOW!
*
Reining-in these young, radical, fire-brands is going to become harder and harder - since they know that The System is covertly on their side, and that they can have all the fun of destruction, of exacerbating and enjoying the opportunities of decline, and of pretending to be brave but suffering minimal personal risk - having, indeed, a high chance of both immediate personal gratification and also eventual establishment embrace.
*
But Satan does not want the sleepwalkers to be woken - because in the long term it is much better for his Big Plan that things be kept soft, comfortable, indefinite, mildly hope-ful for as long as possible; until it really is too late; and then (but only then) will the minor demons and their servants be allowed a field-day - granted (for a while) complete license to slake their vile desires on Men and Women.
*
So, I think we may soon see something which has not been seen for two generations in The West: serious repression of the ultra-Left: a crack-down on the preachers of extreme radicalism and revolution.
For fifty years, the Far-Left have been cosseted and indulged and given status, security and glory; they have functioned as an avant garde for the mainstream progressives - but if they now come to be regarded as threatening the ultimate success of the Big Plan by waking-up the sleepwalkers, then we can anticipate seeing these personnel on the receiving-end of some very tough punishments.
*
Unless, that is, the Adversary himself (and his senior lower-archy) themselves become impatient, and cannot any longer bottle-up their lust for mass misery, torture, starvation, death and destruction.
This is quite likely - as short-termism is natural for evil; one of evil's most potent weapons.
In which case all that and more will happen, in a trice.
And then, the sleepwalkers will - some of them - suddenly awake; and more of them will repent before it is too late.
The horrible truth seems to be that the best 'hope' of the West may be Satan's itchy trigger finger...
*
Nuance versus judgment by inferred motivations
*
This plays out daily in the sham debates of the mass media.
Those in power - i.e. the mass media and their Leftist servants (in other words, the Progressive Establishment, the Mandarinate, those with power and influence) demand to be interpreted with nuance - and impose unilateral nuance on the debate.
In practice, this means those in the power structure debate so that they are judged by strictly legalistic interpretations of their precise words - interpreted with an assumption of their good motivations.
This framework is imposed by the mass media
*
The Progressive Establishment refuse to be judged by any except good motivations (which have been inferred from innumerable previous acts and trends) - it is regarded as simply crazy talk from 'conspiracy theorists' to assume that the power-holders' motivations are bad.
Yet, if the debate is structured by this assumption of the good motivations of the Progressive Establishment - then they must always be allowed 'the benefit of the doubt'; and since doubt can always be manufactured - therefore the Liberal Establishment have pre-won every debate: their victory is built-in...
(Because the mass media controls the debate, and the mass media is the origin and focus of modern New Leftism, Political Correctness, Progressivism.)
*
Leftist politicians have pre-won every issue they care to raise - in the public arena - so long as there has been a lawyerly choice of wording for everything they say.
In other words, so long as Leftist politicians speak legalese, the mass media will always win their debates for them.
It is the ability to communicate in lawyerly - ie. deniable - forms of words which explains the domination of the political system by lawyers.
*
Opposition to Progressive Leftism is, on the other hand, judged not by the legalistic wording of its arguments - but by its inferred motivations: by its assumed negative motivations.
Since it is pre-decided that Leftism has good motivations; opposition necessarily has bad motivations (or else they are ignorant or insane, and can be ignored).
The actual arguments of the opposition do not need to be considered (nuance not needed), because it has been pre-decided that their motivations are wicked (or dumb or crazy).
Therefore the arguments of the opposition are not considered - but the opposition is simply treated as as bad people who want bad things (or else labelled as ignorant or insane, and out-with the scope of legitimate debate).
*
This is modern public discourse.
Nuance and the assumption of good motivations for us - but you will be treated as wicked, dumb or crazy and your arguments will therefore - naturally, be ignored.
You will be managed as 'a problem', not debated.
*
What is the point of participating in this?
None that I can see. Good stuff can only happen outside the public arena, out-with the mass media.
Good people with good ideas must either build-up their own channels of communication - mostly face to face and/or person to person - and essentially ignore the mass media; or else good people are absorbed into evil; fuel the mass media; take-up their pre-assigned parts of demons, knuckle-draggers and lunatics whose defeat has already been scripted.
*
This plays out daily in the sham debates of the mass media.
Those in power - i.e. the mass media and their Leftist servants (in other words, the Progressive Establishment, the Mandarinate, those with power and influence) demand to be interpreted with nuance - and impose unilateral nuance on the debate.
In practice, this means those in the power structure debate so that they are judged by strictly legalistic interpretations of their precise words - interpreted with an assumption of their good motivations.
This framework is imposed by the mass media
*
The Progressive Establishment refuse to be judged by any except good motivations (which have been inferred from innumerable previous acts and trends) - it is regarded as simply crazy talk from 'conspiracy theorists' to assume that the power-holders' motivations are bad.
Yet, if the debate is structured by this assumption of the good motivations of the Progressive Establishment - then they must always be allowed 'the benefit of the doubt'; and since doubt can always be manufactured - therefore the Liberal Establishment have pre-won every debate: their victory is built-in...
(Because the mass media controls the debate, and the mass media is the origin and focus of modern New Leftism, Political Correctness, Progressivism.)
*
Leftist politicians have pre-won every issue they care to raise - in the public arena - so long as there has been a lawyerly choice of wording for everything they say.
In other words, so long as Leftist politicians speak legalese, the mass media will always win their debates for them.
It is the ability to communicate in lawyerly - ie. deniable - forms of words which explains the domination of the political system by lawyers.
*
Opposition to Progressive Leftism is, on the other hand, judged not by the legalistic wording of its arguments - but by its inferred motivations: by its assumed negative motivations.
Since it is pre-decided that Leftism has good motivations; opposition necessarily has bad motivations (or else they are ignorant or insane, and can be ignored).
The actual arguments of the opposition do not need to be considered (nuance not needed), because it has been pre-decided that their motivations are wicked (or dumb or crazy).
Therefore the arguments of the opposition are not considered - but the opposition is simply treated as as bad people who want bad things (or else labelled as ignorant or insane, and out-with the scope of legitimate debate).
*
This is modern public discourse.
Nuance and the assumption of good motivations for us - but you will be treated as wicked, dumb or crazy and your arguments will therefore - naturally, be ignored.
You will be managed as 'a problem', not debated.
*
What is the point of participating in this?
None that I can see. Good stuff can only happen outside the public arena, out-with the mass media.
Good people with good ideas must either build-up their own channels of communication - mostly face to face and/or person to person - and essentially ignore the mass media; or else good people are absorbed into evil; fuel the mass media; take-up their pre-assigned parts of demons, knuckle-draggers and lunatics whose defeat has already been scripted.
*
Thursday 6 November 2014
What to look for in Autumn, Winter, Spring and Summer
*
These Ladybird Books published from 1959 onwards made a big impact on my childhood - both capturing country landscape as I experienced it, and sensitising me to see and feel more.
You can see that the illustrations are quite literally Works of Art - done by CF Tunnicliffe who was a Royal Academician, and who clearly took infinite pains to capture in microcosm the special atmospheres of English country life; as well as providing the basis for an education in nature. Each picture is a poem.
If you are English, or love England - then these are books you should own. Although located at the crux between traditional and modern (1950s) life, and depicting both - their spirit is in fact timeless.
*
These Ladybird Books published from 1959 onwards made a big impact on my childhood - both capturing country landscape as I experienced it, and sensitising me to see and feel more.
You can see that the illustrations are quite literally Works of Art - done by CF Tunnicliffe who was a Royal Academician, and who clearly took infinite pains to capture in microcosm the special atmospheres of English country life; as well as providing the basis for an education in nature. Each picture is a poem.
If you are English, or love England - then these are books you should own. Although located at the crux between traditional and modern (1950s) life, and depicting both - their spirit is in fact timeless.
*
Modern culture is trying to waste your life!
*
This is no joke. At every level and in every way, the strong trend has been to encourage and praise people for putting-off the real things of life, and expending ever more years in 'preparing' for... life.
(And then to retire from life as soon as possible!)
*
Most obviously this applies in formal education and job training. The minimum school leaving age goes up and up, the average school leaving age goes up even-faster; the proportion of people at college is vast and still increasing - the length of time they spend at college, accumulating 'qualifications', is also high and rising.
When, eventually, formal education finishes people spend longer and longer periods getting even more training for jobs. By the time you 'qualify' you will be well onto the down-slope...
*
(I have known many scientists who spent fifteen years gathering qualifications and experience to do 'their own' research: PhD, years and years of post-docs, moving here and their, pretending enthusiasm for what bored them - but when they were finally (late thirties) appointed to a permanent position, they had either forgotten what science was; or else discovered that they were never supposed to do their own research into what fascinated them - but do whatever 'other people' currently decided ought to be funded. I have known doctors who have done two undergraduate degrees, a doctorate, and more or more time training and training to become some kind of specialized surgeon perhaps - studying and working all the hours God sent, moving around the country, around the world, rootless - and when they were eventually appointed to the job of their dreams in their late thirties... discovered didn't like it and quit.)
*
In personal life, there is a very strong social ethic to put-off getting married, and to put-off having children - it is regarded as bizarre and almost wicked for a middle class or upper class woman to marry and have a family at age twenty; for men to want to marry at this age is regarded as just insane (or extremely low status).
*
The idea that we ought to get-on-with the important things of life, is something that hardly comes up - but then, of course, for modern culture the 'important things' are actually what we are supposed to do when putting-off the real things - high living, partying, travel, getting drunk, experiencing multiple friendships and love affairs, gathering sexual experiences, exercising and body-building, sky-diving and bungee-jumping...
That is the Ideal Life, in a secular society - and what a miserable, shallow, corrupting, worthless thing it is. (I speak from experience - as a chronic putter-offer.)
Think about the real motivations of the people who actually want that stuff for you and for your loved ones!
*
Don't be fooled! Don't put-off life, and put-off life, in order to to prepare for life!
Get-on-with what is really important (and if you don't know what is really important, get-on with finding-out) -
Get-on-with it! ... not impatiently, nor desperately, but as soon as you reasonably can!
*
This is no joke. At every level and in every way, the strong trend has been to encourage and praise people for putting-off the real things of life, and expending ever more years in 'preparing' for... life.
(And then to retire from life as soon as possible!)
*
Most obviously this applies in formal education and job training. The minimum school leaving age goes up and up, the average school leaving age goes up even-faster; the proportion of people at college is vast and still increasing - the length of time they spend at college, accumulating 'qualifications', is also high and rising.
When, eventually, formal education finishes people spend longer and longer periods getting even more training for jobs. By the time you 'qualify' you will be well onto the down-slope...
*
(I have known many scientists who spent fifteen years gathering qualifications and experience to do 'their own' research: PhD, years and years of post-docs, moving here and their, pretending enthusiasm for what bored them - but when they were finally (late thirties) appointed to a permanent position, they had either forgotten what science was; or else discovered that they were never supposed to do their own research into what fascinated them - but do whatever 'other people' currently decided ought to be funded. I have known doctors who have done two undergraduate degrees, a doctorate, and more or more time training and training to become some kind of specialized surgeon perhaps - studying and working all the hours God sent, moving around the country, around the world, rootless - and when they were eventually appointed to the job of their dreams in their late thirties... discovered didn't like it and quit.)
*
In personal life, there is a very strong social ethic to put-off getting married, and to put-off having children - it is regarded as bizarre and almost wicked for a middle class or upper class woman to marry and have a family at age twenty; for men to want to marry at this age is regarded as just insane (or extremely low status).
*
The idea that we ought to get-on-with the important things of life, is something that hardly comes up - but then, of course, for modern culture the 'important things' are actually what we are supposed to do when putting-off the real things - high living, partying, travel, getting drunk, experiencing multiple friendships and love affairs, gathering sexual experiences, exercising and body-building, sky-diving and bungee-jumping...
That is the Ideal Life, in a secular society - and what a miserable, shallow, corrupting, worthless thing it is. (I speak from experience - as a chronic putter-offer.)
Think about the real motivations of the people who actually want that stuff for you and for your loved ones!
*
Don't be fooled! Don't put-off life, and put-off life, in order to to prepare for life!
Get-on-with what is really important (and if you don't know what is really important, get-on with finding-out) -
Get-on-with it! ... not impatiently, nor desperately, but as soon as you reasonably can!
*
Wednesday 5 November 2014
I am a serf, like a medieval peasant
*
In medieval times, the Norman Lord was entitled to a percentage of the Saxon serf's labour - the serf was compelled to work on the Lord's domain for - say - half his time. And he could not leave the Lord's domain without permission.
Same now, my Lord - the government - coercively takes about half my labour, by coercively extracting half my income in taxes. And I cannot leave my Lord's domain without a passport, which he can give me or not or withdraw at his will.
The point of this analysis is the cunning of modern serfdom. Coerced labour has been - mostly - eliminated; but coerced extraction of the product of labour continues - but in the abstracted realm of money.
The system is maintained by the Lord using the wealth he extracts to build a castle to protect himself, a retinue to look after himself, and an army who keep me down and keep me at work.
Nowadays, the Lord finds it expedient to include in his retinue a truly a vast gang of sturdy beggars, drifters and brawlers, idlers and drunkards, travellers and squatters and assorted other dependants - to whom the Lord has given a 'right' to the product of my labour.
So, I am grossly outnumbered and out-weaponed, and the church (i.e. the mass media) is solidly against me - and - in short - I am in the usual situation of a serf; of holding-up society and being despised for it by the Lord who coerces me by his self-appointed right, and by the church who sustains the Lord, and by a vast and always-growing retinue whom I am obliged to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain.
And, realistically, there is nothing much I can do about it - because the system benefits the majority, including almost everybody who has power and influence.
I am, indeed, in the situation of Piers Plowman - but in a society far more corrupt and with far less sanction than was his; and my recourse is to his consolations, and my authority is his authority - or none at all.
*
The text of Piers Plowman, by William Langland
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/ppllan
*
Note:
A correspondent points-out that that I have one option that P. Ploughman didn't have - viz to become one of the beggars, drifters, idlers, drunkards, etc.
This is correct, people like me could, perhaps, do what many friends and colleagues have done and retire early and live opulently for another thirty years without working. This explains why the Middle Ages was sustainable over many generations, and why modernity is not.
Furthermore, I am a vastly better-fed, warmer, more comfortable and idler serf than Piers.
However, serfdom (or slavery) does not as a matter of fact imply greater poverty than 'freedom' (that is a modernist myth, which goes with the suggestion that modern people are not serfs, not really, not in any way that actually matters. But many times and places, slavery or serfdom means security; and freedom means starvation.
My point is not to say that freedom is better than serfdom; but to point out that I am a serf; a serf is what I am - and a serf to a corrupt, dishonest Lord with an inverted moral system.
*
In medieval times, the Norman Lord was entitled to a percentage of the Saxon serf's labour - the serf was compelled to work on the Lord's domain for - say - half his time. And he could not leave the Lord's domain without permission.
Same now, my Lord - the government - coercively takes about half my labour, by coercively extracting half my income in taxes. And I cannot leave my Lord's domain without a passport, which he can give me or not or withdraw at his will.
The point of this analysis is the cunning of modern serfdom. Coerced labour has been - mostly - eliminated; but coerced extraction of the product of labour continues - but in the abstracted realm of money.
The system is maintained by the Lord using the wealth he extracts to build a castle to protect himself, a retinue to look after himself, and an army who keep me down and keep me at work.
Nowadays, the Lord finds it expedient to include in his retinue a truly a vast gang of sturdy beggars, drifters and brawlers, idlers and drunkards, travellers and squatters and assorted other dependants - to whom the Lord has given a 'right' to the product of my labour.
So, I am grossly outnumbered and out-weaponed, and the church (i.e. the mass media) is solidly against me - and - in short - I am in the usual situation of a serf; of holding-up society and being despised for it by the Lord who coerces me by his self-appointed right, and by the church who sustains the Lord, and by a vast and always-growing retinue whom I am obliged to feed, clothe, shelter and entertain.
And, realistically, there is nothing much I can do about it - because the system benefits the majority, including almost everybody who has power and influence.
I am, indeed, in the situation of Piers Plowman - but in a society far more corrupt and with far less sanction than was his; and my recourse is to his consolations, and my authority is his authority - or none at all.
*
The text of Piers Plowman, by William Langland
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme/ppllan
*
Note:
A correspondent points-out that that I have one option that P. Ploughman didn't have - viz to become one of the beggars, drifters, idlers, drunkards, etc.
This is correct, people like me could, perhaps, do what many friends and colleagues have done and retire early and live opulently for another thirty years without working. This explains why the Middle Ages was sustainable over many generations, and why modernity is not.
Furthermore, I am a vastly better-fed, warmer, more comfortable and idler serf than Piers.
However, serfdom (or slavery) does not as a matter of fact imply greater poverty than 'freedom' (that is a modernist myth, which goes with the suggestion that modern people are not serfs, not really, not in any way that actually matters. But many times and places, slavery or serfdom means security; and freedom means starvation.
My point is not to say that freedom is better than serfdom; but to point out that I am a serf; a serf is what I am - and a serf to a corrupt, dishonest Lord with an inverted moral system.
*
Tuesday 4 November 2014
Gossip: perhaps at present the most neglected and most popular of sins?
*
Throughout the Bible there are multiple references to the sinfulness of gossip, the passing on of malicious details, speculations, and falsehoods. The problem of gossip is taken very seriously in the Bible, and there are sanctions against those who gossip.
Yet gossip is the bread-and-butter of interpersonal discourse for many people, most of the time - including Christians. And it is the very basis and substance of much mass media communication, which has expanded so much in recent decades.
And the synergistic combination of interpersonal discourse with internet mass media has made the phenomenon of social networking into by far the largest and most powerful international malicious gossip fest that there has ever been in the history of the world.
So, there is a serious, damaging sin - which is rampantly growing, combined with little awareness of the gross wickedness involved.
*
An example from a while ago was the Christian-driven gossip, ignorance and lying directed against the Harry Potter books and JK Rowling. This matter is thoroughly dealt with by Jerram Barrs in the following lecture.
http://www.bethinking.org/culture/jk-rowling-and-harry-potter
As so often, people are most in danger of unrestrained sin when they feel they are being self-righteous.
Obviously malicious gossip is - sooner or later - sickening for decent people, they feel disgust for themselves and others. Moralistic gossip is the worst kind of gossip, people hatred, spite and malice are disguised.
*
The matter of gossip is not to be confused with 'judgement' - and especially not with the confused and mistaken idea among Christians that humans are (supposedly) not allowed to judge the sinfulness of others.
This is nonsense - the judgement from which Christians are supposed to refrain is that concerned with their ultimate salvation. But it would be insane and indeed wicked for humans to refrain from judging one another about their activities and motivations - of course we must judge!
So, as always, extremes are both wrong. Gossip is certainly a sin; but we must judge, and may have a duty to warn others in light of our judgements.
Part of doing right is a matter of motivation (real inner motivation, not what you might say to others to justify yourself); and part of it is a matter of knowledge based on trusted sources and persona experience; versus passing-on hearsay from sources known to be dishonest, spiteful, destructive and themselves wicked.
*
Throughout the Bible there are multiple references to the sinfulness of gossip, the passing on of malicious details, speculations, and falsehoods. The problem of gossip is taken very seriously in the Bible, and there are sanctions against those who gossip.
Yet gossip is the bread-and-butter of interpersonal discourse for many people, most of the time - including Christians. And it is the very basis and substance of much mass media communication, which has expanded so much in recent decades.
And the synergistic combination of interpersonal discourse with internet mass media has made the phenomenon of social networking into by far the largest and most powerful international malicious gossip fest that there has ever been in the history of the world.
So, there is a serious, damaging sin - which is rampantly growing, combined with little awareness of the gross wickedness involved.
*
An example from a while ago was the Christian-driven gossip, ignorance and lying directed against the Harry Potter books and JK Rowling. This matter is thoroughly dealt with by Jerram Barrs in the following lecture.
http://www.bethinking.org/culture/jk-rowling-and-harry-potter
As so often, people are most in danger of unrestrained sin when they feel they are being self-righteous.
Obviously malicious gossip is - sooner or later - sickening for decent people, they feel disgust for themselves and others. Moralistic gossip is the worst kind of gossip, people hatred, spite and malice are disguised.
*
The matter of gossip is not to be confused with 'judgement' - and especially not with the confused and mistaken idea among Christians that humans are (supposedly) not allowed to judge the sinfulness of others.
This is nonsense - the judgement from which Christians are supposed to refrain is that concerned with their ultimate salvation. But it would be insane and indeed wicked for humans to refrain from judging one another about their activities and motivations - of course we must judge!
So, as always, extremes are both wrong. Gossip is certainly a sin; but we must judge, and may have a duty to warn others in light of our judgements.
Part of doing right is a matter of motivation (real inner motivation, not what you might say to others to justify yourself); and part of it is a matter of knowledge based on trusted sources and persona experience; versus passing-on hearsay from sources known to be dishonest, spiteful, destructive and themselves wicked.
*
I had a little nut tree
*
I had a little nut tree
Nothing would it bear
But a silver nutmeg
And a golden pear
The King of Spain's daughter
Came to visit me
And all for the sake
Of my little nut tree
I danced over ocean
I flew over sea
And all the birds in the air
Couldn't catch me
*
These are the words, as I recall them, of an especially evocative nursery rhyme which (for me) attains to a high level of lyric poetry - and evokes that yearning joy of Sehnsucht.
The decontextualized, uncompromising, unexplained, pared-down quality; is caused (I think) by the tendency of oral transmission and pure memory to focus on the striking imagery - and the rest gets washed away or garbled.
This is what makes the great nursery rhymes, folk songs and ballads so effective - yet the effect cannot be contrived, unless by a poet with a child's gift of directness: William Blake, Stevie Smith for instance.
I feel as if I know exactly what has happened here, and it happened to me! - it is a child's dream of pure escape from a dull, hopeless and desperate situation, into wonder, ecstatic delight and boundless optimism.
*
This version has the lovely tune I knew - with slightly different words. Ideally it should be sung by a boy's voice.
I had a little nut tree
Nothing would it bear
But a silver nutmeg
And a golden pear
The King of Spain's daughter
Came to visit me
And all for the sake
Of my little nut tree
I danced over ocean
I flew over sea
And all the birds in the air
Couldn't catch me
*
These are the words, as I recall them, of an especially evocative nursery rhyme which (for me) attains to a high level of lyric poetry - and evokes that yearning joy of Sehnsucht.
The decontextualized, uncompromising, unexplained, pared-down quality; is caused (I think) by the tendency of oral transmission and pure memory to focus on the striking imagery - and the rest gets washed away or garbled.
This is what makes the great nursery rhymes, folk songs and ballads so effective - yet the effect cannot be contrived, unless by a poet with a child's gift of directness: William Blake, Stevie Smith for instance.
I feel as if I know exactly what has happened here, and it happened to me! - it is a child's dream of pure escape from a dull, hopeless and desperate situation, into wonder, ecstatic delight and boundless optimism.
*
This version has the lovely tune I knew - with slightly different words. Ideally it should be sung by a boy's voice.
Monday 3 November 2014
There should be zero tolerance of dishonesty among politicians, executives, managers and other public figures
*
Public life is so riddled with dishonesty nowadays that it seems a ridiculously high standard to insist on honesty from public figures - but things are much worse that they used to be in this regard, and a getting worse.
It seems that the modern 'sensible' 'pragmatic' attitude to dishonesty and celebration of hype, spin, marketing etc is merely an indulgence of the dishonest at the expense of the honest: successful liars are in power all around the world - the few truth-tellers (and there are a few) are given no credit - indeed are often subjected to that especially condemned form of lying called 'bearing false witness' - they are subject to denigrations by campaigns of malice, gossip, innuendo etc.
Indeed the mass media (itself a confederation of liars) deliberately corrupts the words to do with honesty; for example by name-calling people liars for advocating policies with which the media disagree; or name calling liars for having different religions or ideologies than the media support. This in the name of a sophisticated understanding of truth and dishonesty, when the real issue of truth and lies is easily comprehensible to a young child.
*
The biggest lie is that only carefully defined lies are dishonest - and endless legalistic discussions are engaged in about whether or not the statement X counts as a lie, or whether it is in fact 'legalistically' not really a lie... But this distinction is irrelevant, and itself a gross dishonesty.
When a statement is specifically framed to induce other people to draw a dishonest conclusion (eg by use of misleading statistics) - it is morally the same as a lie; indeed it is a double lie.
*
Truth is the intent to tell the truth, to tell the truth as one believes it to be true, to be truthful at all times and places and instances such that truth telling is habitual.
By Christian morality, all lies, selections, misrepresentations and distortions, hype and pin - are equally sin; they are all an intention to mislead.
Satan is described by Jesus as the Father of Lies, his title. Thus, to be dishonest is to be on the side of Satan - and to be ruled by habitual and unrepentantly dishonest men and women (as so many of us are) is simply to be ruled by the servants of Satan.
That is who the dishonest are, objectively, and without any question.
*
We should have zero tolerance for dishonesty in public life, and when somebody breaks the rule, that should be a permanent disqualification; unless or until they have made an explicit admission of their dishonesty, and have convincingly repented.
Those public figures who cannot even tell when they are lying, and see no moral difference between truth and lies, so that they can and do sincerely utter untruths - or simply are dishonest because everybody else around them is dishonest - are functionally psychopaths, slacking in basic conscience, should obviously not be public figures.
*
Dishonesty is a sin, and among the very worst of all sins, as we are discovering. Dishonesty utterly corrupts the soul, discourse, and erodes trust - human societies cannot communicate, lose functionality in all domains.
A society of endemic dishonesty is an evil society; when this dishonesty is unrepented - and doubly evil when the dishonesty is approved. And when the highest, most powerful, most influential people are the most dishonest; thenwe are deep in trouble.
Zero tolerance is the only good and rational attitude.
*
Public life is so riddled with dishonesty nowadays that it seems a ridiculously high standard to insist on honesty from public figures - but things are much worse that they used to be in this regard, and a getting worse.
It seems that the modern 'sensible' 'pragmatic' attitude to dishonesty and celebration of hype, spin, marketing etc is merely an indulgence of the dishonest at the expense of the honest: successful liars are in power all around the world - the few truth-tellers (and there are a few) are given no credit - indeed are often subjected to that especially condemned form of lying called 'bearing false witness' - they are subject to denigrations by campaigns of malice, gossip, innuendo etc.
Indeed the mass media (itself a confederation of liars) deliberately corrupts the words to do with honesty; for example by name-calling people liars for advocating policies with which the media disagree; or name calling liars for having different religions or ideologies than the media support. This in the name of a sophisticated understanding of truth and dishonesty, when the real issue of truth and lies is easily comprehensible to a young child.
*
The biggest lie is that only carefully defined lies are dishonest - and endless legalistic discussions are engaged in about whether or not the statement X counts as a lie, or whether it is in fact 'legalistically' not really a lie... But this distinction is irrelevant, and itself a gross dishonesty.
When a statement is specifically framed to induce other people to draw a dishonest conclusion (eg by use of misleading statistics) - it is morally the same as a lie; indeed it is a double lie.
*
Truth is the intent to tell the truth, to tell the truth as one believes it to be true, to be truthful at all times and places and instances such that truth telling is habitual.
By Christian morality, all lies, selections, misrepresentations and distortions, hype and pin - are equally sin; they are all an intention to mislead.
Satan is described by Jesus as the Father of Lies, his title. Thus, to be dishonest is to be on the side of Satan - and to be ruled by habitual and unrepentantly dishonest men and women (as so many of us are) is simply to be ruled by the servants of Satan.
That is who the dishonest are, objectively, and without any question.
*
We should have zero tolerance for dishonesty in public life, and when somebody breaks the rule, that should be a permanent disqualification; unless or until they have made an explicit admission of their dishonesty, and have convincingly repented.
Those public figures who cannot even tell when they are lying, and see no moral difference between truth and lies, so that they can and do sincerely utter untruths - or simply are dishonest because everybody else around them is dishonest - are functionally psychopaths, slacking in basic conscience, should obviously not be public figures.
*
Dishonesty is a sin, and among the very worst of all sins, as we are discovering. Dishonesty utterly corrupts the soul, discourse, and erodes trust - human societies cannot communicate, lose functionality in all domains.
A society of endemic dishonesty is an evil society; when this dishonesty is unrepented - and doubly evil when the dishonesty is approved. And when the highest, most powerful, most influential people are the most dishonest; thenwe are deep in trouble.
Zero tolerance is the only good and rational attitude.
*
Sunday 2 November 2014
Great moments in musical performance - Heigh Ho Holiday by Anthony Holborne, played by Julian Bream
*
Begins at 4:26;
Great moment = the high note at 5:03.
Begins at 4:26;
Great moment = the high note at 5:03.
Saturday 1 November 2014
Understanding the two-fold role of natural selection in the origins of life: first sustaining life, as it has arisen by chance; only secondarily adapting, changing and improving life
*
Biology is the science of living things, therefore the definition of life is a matter outside biology.
Indeed, the definition of life is, properly speaking, outside of science; despite that the mainstream current definition is derived from chemistry - based on the replication of molecules with the possibility for variation and selection. But that this really constitutes 'life', does not come from science but is a non-scientific assertion or assumption.
The other mainstream definition of life refers 'metabolism' - but the 'real' nature of life is just a matter of choosing a definition - there is no right answer; and furthermore replication and metabolism may have evolved separately and using different molecular types.
*
(For example, Freeman Dyson has argued that metabolic life may have evolved firstly among proteins, and this metabolism was parasitised by replicating RNA molecules - and later protein and nucleic acids co-evolved to join in that symbiosis we observe as 'the cell'.)
*
Natural selection must have something to work on - and that something must be sufficiently stable to allow for some reasonably large number of generations to do the work of natural selection.
*
(In a deeper, metaphysical sense; natural selection presupposes an understanding and identification of 'form'; because form dictates what it is that evolves, and when that form stays the same or when it changes to another and different form. Unless form, its constancy and change are already known, in a definition originating outwith biology, then the workings of natural selection could never be observed.)
*
Therefore, life must have been initiated by chance; then this spontaneous life must have 'fallen-into' some natural form, pre-existent order, stereotypical pattern, auto-catalytic system, or 'strange attractor' which kept it going for a while - because only then could natural selection do its work.
Even with natural forms - when it comes to life: what chance has given, chance also can take away.
And any form of life will have a tendency towards extinction from what has been termed error catastrophe (unless it has evolved methods for preventing this).
*
Error catastrophe is what happens in a metabolising or replicating system due to the spontaneous occurrence of errors to processes and copying. Such errors will naturally accumulate over time, unless there is some means to prevent them accumulating.
(Mutation accumulation is a special type of error catastrophe:
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mutation+accumulation )
And the vast majority of errors will damage functionality (because only a tiny proportion of undirected changes will improve functionality), and each new accumulating error will tend further to damage functioning - tending towards a catastrophic loss of function with death of the individual and/or extinction of the lineage.
*
But however life is defined, the principles apply that life must form and have some degree of stability by some combination of chance and natural forms; and then the first job of natural selection is to stabilise life.
Put it another way - life may form spontaneously - but it will not last without the help of natural selection.
*
Natural selection must primarily be about sustaining life, because only when life is being sustained, is there a possibility of the of life being improved.
Because, it is statistically improbable for an error to be an improvement; and therefore it typically requires considerable time (in terms of generations), and or a considerable population (because numbers amplify the number of generations) before the undirected ('random') occurrence of a beneficial error.
*
So, life happens by chance but life is also is doomed by chance to be short-lasting; therefore the first 'job' of natural selection is to keep life going just as it is - just as it has arisen by chance.
And only after life has evolved such as to have been kept going just as it is by chance, is there any possibility of natural selection to produce adaptation of organisms.
First sustaining, then later (perhaps) improvement.
*
Biology is the science of living things, therefore the definition of life is a matter outside biology.
Indeed, the definition of life is, properly speaking, outside of science; despite that the mainstream current definition is derived from chemistry - based on the replication of molecules with the possibility for variation and selection. But that this really constitutes 'life', does not come from science but is a non-scientific assertion or assumption.
The other mainstream definition of life refers 'metabolism' - but the 'real' nature of life is just a matter of choosing a definition - there is no right answer; and furthermore replication and metabolism may have evolved separately and using different molecular types.
*
(For example, Freeman Dyson has argued that metabolic life may have evolved firstly among proteins, and this metabolism was parasitised by replicating RNA molecules - and later protein and nucleic acids co-evolved to join in that symbiosis we observe as 'the cell'.)
*
Natural selection must have something to work on - and that something must be sufficiently stable to allow for some reasonably large number of generations to do the work of natural selection.
*
(In a deeper, metaphysical sense; natural selection presupposes an understanding and identification of 'form'; because form dictates what it is that evolves, and when that form stays the same or when it changes to another and different form. Unless form, its constancy and change are already known, in a definition originating outwith biology, then the workings of natural selection could never be observed.)
*
Therefore, life must have been initiated by chance; then this spontaneous life must have 'fallen-into' some natural form, pre-existent order, stereotypical pattern, auto-catalytic system, or 'strange attractor' which kept it going for a while - because only then could natural selection do its work.
Even with natural forms - when it comes to life: what chance has given, chance also can take away.
And any form of life will have a tendency towards extinction from what has been termed error catastrophe (unless it has evolved methods for preventing this).
*
Error catastrophe is what happens in a metabolising or replicating system due to the spontaneous occurrence of errors to processes and copying. Such errors will naturally accumulate over time, unless there is some means to prevent them accumulating.
(Mutation accumulation is a special type of error catastrophe:
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mutation+accumulation )
And the vast majority of errors will damage functionality (because only a tiny proportion of undirected changes will improve functionality), and each new accumulating error will tend further to damage functioning - tending towards a catastrophic loss of function with death of the individual and/or extinction of the lineage.
*
But however life is defined, the principles apply that life must form and have some degree of stability by some combination of chance and natural forms; and then the first job of natural selection is to stabilise life.
Put it another way - life may form spontaneously - but it will not last without the help of natural selection.
*
Natural selection must primarily be about sustaining life, because only when life is being sustained, is there a possibility of the of life being improved.
Because, it is statistically improbable for an error to be an improvement; and therefore it typically requires considerable time (in terms of generations), and or a considerable population (because numbers amplify the number of generations) before the undirected ('random') occurrence of a beneficial error.
*
So, life happens by chance but life is also is doomed by chance to be short-lasting; therefore the first 'job' of natural selection is to keep life going just as it is - just as it has arisen by chance.
And only after life has evolved such as to have been kept going just as it is by chance, is there any possibility of natural selection to produce adaptation of organisms.
First sustaining, then later (perhaps) improvement.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)