Bruce Charlton's Notions

Regular readers will know that I regard the characterisation of 'an omni-God' - that is a God described in terms of abstract absolutes such as omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence - as a wrong, tendentious, harm-tending error of mainstream Christianity. God is not all-knowing, not all-powerful - and one major and vital limitation on God is agency, or Free Will.

God's knowledge and power is rooted in his being The Creator; and the crux of the problem for mainstream Christianity is that if God created Free Will, if he created the 'mechanism' of agency - and because creation is something on-going and continuous (not something done once in the past then left), then God would have knowledge of and power over Free would... But then agency would not be truly autonomous and free: merely just another expression of God's ongoing creation...

To me, the above mainstream Christian explanation is seriously incoherent; and given the importance of Free Will to Christianity, we need to try and do better... 

Since (as I assume) agency is real and will is indeed free; then these need to be regarded as Not having been created and sustained by God. But instead, agents with free will are pre-existent to God's creation - already-there when creation began - used-by God in doing creation, but not made-by God.

So; the nature of reality is that God's creation is the means by which he pursues his divine plan, a plan to have children and to raise them to become divine like himself (and this has now been fully accomplished by Jesus Christ - so all Men have a model and method) - working-around the constraint, a 'constraint' which is itself necessary for full divinity, of Man's agency.

Thus we have God's creation, inhabited by living, conscious agents with (various degrees of) Free Will - God controlling many aspects of the situation, but neither knowing nor controlling the 'inner workings' of agency.

In other words the real-self is divine, and opaque to God the creator. God must therefore pursue his goals 'indirectly'. However, this indirectness is a feature, not a bug, since it is only genuine free-agents who can fulfil God's plan.

(The alternative being a universe of unfree, wholly-controlled automata; fake/ simulated persons merely.) 

And insofar as reality consists of many agent beings of many kinds - including what we currently (mainstream) think of as minerals, vegetables, and animals; which are alive and conscious to different degrees and in different ways - the nature of reality consists of God setting up situations and responding to the consequences of agency, in a continually purposive but not-predetermined fashion.

It explains why Free Will is a necessary part of the plan; God had to work-around agency in order that the plan could be achieved; and without Free Will there could have been no plan for divinisation.

This description seems to me an exact fit for the nature of reality as I perceive and understand it; which is why I share it here.

There are so many incoherent ideas-about and explanations-of Free Will, and yet its reality is so vitally important, that this is something that almost everybody needs to sort-out for themselves (assuming that they cannot ignore the explanations).

For Christians, Free Will is at the heart of the religion; and indeed, when (as has quite often happened) Christians neglect the matter of Free Will then the whole nature and practice of the religion gravitates into something quite un-Christian.

Indeed, when Free Will is taken out of Christianity, we get something approximating to Islam - in which obedience to God's will becomes the central virtue.

Nonetheless, taking Free Will seriously (as I think we must) takes us to places a long way from mainstream Christianity

1. Free Will is about thinking, not about actions. (Necessary to avoid incoherence.) Free Will is not all of thinking, not even most of thinking: Free Will is one kind, and the most fundamental kind, of thinking.

2. Free Will needs to be considered an uncaused cause - that is, the thinking of Free Will cannot be explained in terms of being a consequence of anything else. So we should not try to do so.

3. This means that the thinking of Free Will can be observed only after it has emerged. We cannot, and never could, perceive what is going-on in Free Will: Free Will emerges from a black box. We might observe it as it emerges from the black box, but could never see it being formed. 

4. And when I say 'we' could not perceive or observe the workings or causes of Free Will - I also mean our-real-selves cannot do this. The (obvious) reason being that Free Will emerges-from our real-selves. So we-our-selves are in the position of observing thoughts as they emerge from our-selves - we can do so only after they have separated from ourselves.

5. What applies to our-selves also applies to God. God cannot, does not, perceive and know what is going-on where the thinking of Free Will comes-from. God cannot see-into our real selves; cannot analyse of Free Will: nothing can.

6. The 'workings' of Free Will are opaque, even to the creator - the reason is that God did not create that-which from-which Free Will emerges. That entity from-which Free Will (our real-selves) emerges is prior to creation.

7. God's creation works-around this; but Free Will is not a regrettable constraint. Creation is about bringing the Free Will of personal agents into voluntary, loving harmony and further creativity.

Note: What I have done above to is make a metaphysical assumption that Free Will is really-real and really-free (because implied and entailed by Christianity); and to reason from that assumption. 

How should we prepare for a quest to discover Albion, hidden somewhere, somehow, in modern Britain?

Reading the Fourth Gospel ('of John') it is almost incomprehensible how mainstream Christians became dogmatically fixed on the idea that God the Father was a spirit, and not incarnate; given the multiple and clear references to Jesus stating that he and the Father are the same in form.

The Father, we are told, is incarnate, has a body - this isn't in doubt, but the question is what this state of incarnation means.

Part of the prevalent misunderstanding that The Father is spirit derives from the already-existing philosophical idea among Classical pre-Christian intellectuals that God 'must be' a discarnate spirit, because spirit was the highest form. They regarded bodies as matter, and matter as lower than spirit - more restricted, prone to corruption etc...

Another element is that the nature of purpose of incarnation is mis-stated by the word in-carn-ation itself, with its reference to the body - asif that was the most-important aspect of the definition.


But if we accept that the ultimate reality of creation is consciousness, and that God 'thinks' creation into manifestation and sustains it as such, and that it is by our thinking that we may come to be like God... then matters become clearer.

The facts of Jesus being incarnated (from his pre-mortal state as a discarnate spirit), and that he was resurrected into the same incarnate form as ourselves, ought to show us that incarnation is a higher form than spirit. But it is not the addition of 'matter' or 'solidity' that makes incarnation higher than spirit (matter/ solidity etc. are merely consequences of incarnation) - rather it is the mode of consciousness of an incarnate that is higher than a spirit.

Incarnation is a necessary step towards divine consciousness - towards the form of consciousness of the Father and the Son.


We began as children of God in the form of pre-mortal spirits, immersed-in the divine consciousness. As such we were all happy and good; but in the incomplete, immature ways that a young child is happy and good - by virtue of our environment, not from-our-selves.

Spirit consciousness lacks full agency - a spirit is, to a considerable extent, immersed-in the consciousness of other spirits - the individual is not divided clearly from other spirits, or from God the Father. Therefore, our pre-mortal spirits were passively immersed-in the divine consciousness - we lacked 'free will'.

To fulfil a destiny of becoming fully Sons of God, of the same kind as Jesus became; entails that our consciousness become rooted in itself; and then (like Jesus) chooses (from this state of autonomous agency) to ally with God, with creation.

Physical, material bodies are 'merely' the manifestation, the consequence, of a greater degree of separation, greater self-generated activity, greater agency.


Therefore, mortal incarnation is the first step towards that agency without which we cannot become full children of God. Jesus needed to become incarnate to become fully divine.

When Jesus was incarnated as a mortal - and after he had been baptised by John to commence his ministry; Jesus had the divine mode of consciousness. He was separated from the Father, and could have rejected Him. Thus, Jesus needed to make a choice, an act of will; to Love the Father, to align-with the father's creation. And of course he did.

And after death Jesus was resurrected to a permanent and incorruptible incarnation - but he remained incarnate because it is a higher mode of consciousness; and this Jesus needed to become fully-divine.

What this aims-at, what it is 'about', is divine consciousness; which is consciousness of truth and reality. More exactly; when Jesus was thinking - he thought only and always in truth and reality and with Love for it. And - because Jesus did this; this is what we can now be offered as a choice.  

It was this choice and act of Jesus to align with The Father in truth and reality, in his thinking; that made it possible for our-selves to follow the same path. Once Jesus had done it, reality was changed (because Jesus's thought was reality) - now, because reality has been changed, this path and choice is universally available for anyone else to do.


We can know this directly (without any mediation of 'communication'), and for our-selves (regardless of circumstances) by thinking in the divine way; which thinking is made possible by two things: first the fact of us being children of God; and second the fact of the Holy Ghost which will show us the way, if we seek it.

In this sense, consciousness is the centre and unifying fact of the Christian scheme. It was in order that all Men could become fully-divine, children of God, that Jesus did what he did; and it was necessary for Jesus to do what he did in order for Jesus himself to become fully-divine: he needed to become incarnate, like his Father.

By recognising The Father as incarnate, we can therefore quite easily recognise why Jesus needed to become incarnate - and (at least in outline) how the incarnation of Jesus made it possible for other Men to become fully children of God.


(Note: These End Times have the characteristic of locating and amplifying what seem like small errors in Christian theology, to make them decisive in chosen damnation. The error of insisting that The Father is spirit and not incarnate was not very important in earlier times and places; but it has become important now - because it is has become the tip of a wedge that leads to rejection of the goodness of incarnation, hence to the denial of Christ's necessity to Man's salvation.)

A while back, I wrote about the snake-eyed ones - the people one meets whose eyes have the hard, calculating, hypnotic, manipulative stare of snakes or lizards (or dragons).

On the whole, these are probably people who are 'demonically possessed' - who have invited evil spirits into their souls, on promise of gaining some worldly goal (e.g. money, power, sex, sadism).

Zombie eyes are another, and probably more common, phenomenon - perhaps especially among women. These are dead eyes, eyes that utterly lack agency, free will, inner motivation.

While snake eyes seem to indicate the presence of a purposive evil being in the soul; zombie eyes seem to indicate something like mind-control.  That person's real self has been switched-off, suppressed, buried... and their actions are being controlled...

The dead eyes show that the mind has become a conduit - and has no source of being in-itself. The soul has been bypassed and the body, the movements, the emotions are all externally-driven.

The cause of zombie eyes could be - at the extreme - a mental enslavement imposed on an initially-willing victim; or it could be (in more susceptible persons) simply the result of living in a bureaucratic world at work, and a mass/ social media world during leisure... many people simply open their minds and let the world flow-through.

Such are these End Times... On the positive side, it can be quite easy to identity the as-yet un-corrupted - those (few) who are not the allies, servants or slaves of the demons. One meeting of the eyes may be enough - the open-hearted gaze or smile of a child, for example. How few adults one meets who have that clarity and goodness of soul! - yet there are some.

Intelligence is a means to an end - but when the aim to which intelligence is harnessed is a useless, or actively harmful, one... well intelligence simply accelerates the damage.

And that is precisely the situation that has increasingly prevailed in The West for the past 200 years.  In such a situation, intelligence becomes a social evil, and extreme intelligence even more so.

Add to intelligence creativity and inner motivation, and you have (pretty much) genius. A genius may be completely ignored - but if attended-to the effect of a genius is sometimes multiplied to an equivalent of hundreds, thousands or even millions of non-genius people.

So, if a genius is evil-motivated, or even simply self-ish and short-termist in his aims (or is appropriated by such people); then he may inflict truly colossal damage on societies. There are also an abundance of examples of this phenomenon over the past couple of hundred years, but particularly in the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries - Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Picasso, Schoenberg...

(After which geniuses began to get rarer - and now they have largely disappeared from public discourse; although some exist, mostly disregarded.)

My point is that the problems of the Modern West cannot be solved by intelligence, nor by geniuses; because of the pervasiveness of evil motivation - especially among the middle, intellectual and ruling classes that contain most such people.

Only when or if there was a Christian spiritual awakening that reorientated people from aiming-at evil towards aspiring to Good; would brains and creativity become valuable.

And what applies to human psychological capacity, applies equally to technological capacity: we cannot be saved but only have our doom accelerated by progress in science, computers, medicine, or any other mechanism or technology.

And this also applies to politics, to administration, bureaucracy, management and mass media.

When the End is evil, better means only make matters worse.

It's Common Sense, really - but easily forgotten.

I was rewatching a marvellous video interview of Jeremy Naydler in relation to a review I am writing of his new book on the 'ancient' history of the computer concept: In the Shadow of the Machine.


I should say that I regard Naydler as one of the most insightful people thinking and writing in modern Britain, and this was confirmed when I visited him a couple of years ago. Anyway, at 22 minutes he begins to talk about the Ahrimanic influence on modern consciousness; and how computers and bureaucracy are training/ compelling Men to think like machines.

That's an alternative way to conceptualise the failure of modern consciousness that so obsesses me; the way that Western Man did not take up the true Romantic Revolution around 1800; but instead - for what were basically sin-full reasons to do with the pursuit of worldly pleasures - we embarked on the continuing project of reducing and assimilating the human mind to the machine; with Luciferic, mainly sexual, interludes for R&R.

Jeremy's books and publications are listed at: http://www.abzupress.co.uk/webcat.htm

Everything Naydler writes is at least interesting, and some of it is exceptionally original and important - my favourite is probably The Future of the Ancient World (2009).

Tough thinking from 'CCL' in response to yesterday's post on 'strategy' and its current undesirability...

I think that the key thing is that there is no strategy that does not involve the basic and unavoidable evil of war, i.e. collateral damage.

And the collateral damage we must accept to form a realistic strategy at this stage is stupendous.

Essentially, the sacrifice of all civilization and everything that depends on it, saving only ourselves and what we can personally conserve. This would be an evil strategy if the wider culture were viable, and thus had to be actively undermined.

What makes this strategy less evil is that it requires nothing of us but that we individually disengage and stop actively serving the unsustainable evil of the wider culture. But by the token of being a movement of individuals moved by personal conscience, it ceases to seem anything like a strategy at the scale of events we're facing.

Nor is it one, because the larger scale culture is not our concern. What matters is the individual, personal decisions of each of us and our accountability to God for them.

We are accustomed to assuming that 'the thing is' to have a strategy if you want to change culture. And certainly one can strategically wreck culture - think of government departments, 'new initiatives', five-year-plans; think of Mission Statements (actually, that's too nasty - you had better not...).

But there is no evidence that culture (or science, or literature, or music, or morality, or virtue - or anything Good) can be improved by a strategy except in the short term (if a system is already good, and resources are thrown at it, then there will initially be an improvement in so far as the good aspects are resource-constrained - before the overall system is corrupted). Indeed all the evidence is that a sustained strategy always wrecks every-thing it addresses.

One reason is that strategy treats of people in the lump, and assumes that individual differences don't really matter. But if every-body really is different from each other in their eternal essence; if we began different and are intended (by God) to end as different - then we ought to give-up strategic thinking at the fundamental level... if we can (it's hard).

This is a place in which traditionalist thinkers are as badly in error as radicals: both envisage a world in which the individual is fitted to the system. But Heaven won't be like that, and it is not what the Christian God wants from the sons and daughters of God (or else he created the world very ill, or is not Good - both of which we must reject).

To give-up on strategic thinking at first induces a sense of despair; because it is how we tend to conceptualise progress. Yet that assumption is itself a corruption of exactly the kind we hope to overcome.

And then, when we continue to reject strategic thinking - and cease to make plans to resist and fight, and plans to expand and conquer, and abandon plans to be better... and more consistently so - there is a great sense of rightness: the heart informs us that we have done-good, that we are on-the-right-lines. That this is truth and based on truth.

Only then may we be able to think properly; to think from our true-self, to think intuitively. 

We feel secure, and - in a deep (not surface) sense: indomitable.

At Albion Awakening...

In a new post at Albion Awakening, William Wildblood concludes... Well maybe - sort-of - but not in the way you are thinking!

I spent quite a long time (from - say - 1985 to 2010) trying in all possible ways to reform (or at least prevent the rapid decline and corruption of) the areas in which I was employed and worked without the slightest degree of success.

The reason was simple, and I expressed it most fully in relation to science; and it was that the rot was already too extensive, and there were insufficient people who wanted to reform the subjects.

There are, indeed, (here and now) extremely few people who work in any area, that have any kind of vocation for work - almost everybody has a careerist attitude; and is therefore obedient primarily. So when it comes to stopping the rot; the rot itself isn't usually very keen to make an effort, or even to be associated with an effort. Typically, people just melt-away...

So - despite writing about things, speaking about things in lectures, seminars etc, making-waves as and when - I just watched the whole horror story unfold.

This has had a permanent effect on my attitude; because I realise that when the mass of people in an organisation, an institution, a profession, a nation... are complicit in corruption, when they are careerist, when they are motivated by short-termism, by the attempt to maximise pleasure and status or minimise suffering or risk... then there is no realistic prospect of overall and positive reform.

(This fact of what people were like was one of the great disappointments of my life - and I found it dominant everywhere and everwhere worsening, although not everywhere equally bad.)

Minor specific victories, or delays; when all around is collapsing and stampeding in the wrong direction, are really not worthwhile - and, indeed, I have experienced a success being twisted round and used in exactly the opposite way from that intended.

This happened from about 1990 when I initiated an idea of a 'core and options' medical curriculum, which was taken up by the General Medical Council and adopted widely - but not to enhance the depth of understanding of a specific subject, but instead to destroy the vital educational aspects of traditional medicine, such as gross anatomy. 'Core and options' therefore overall did more harm than good; or else was merely used to do something bad that would have been done anyway, but perhaps with a different excuse.

Anyway, my lesson was that all systems depend on people; and goodness depends on good people - which means people motivated by good. And this in turn depends on the definition of good.

If/ when good is defined in a broadly utilitarian fashion, as in all modern societies through the West, then goodness is equated with happiness, pleasure, absence of suffering - and all systems (science, medicine, psychiatry, universities, nations etc) are always and necessarily corrupted. How could they not be?

With the prevalent utilitarian morality as bottom line - there will be generalised corruption, and there will not be any traction to deal with it - so corruption will continue. Modern institutions cannot ever be reformed because they do not want to be reformed.

Only if, or when, people adopt a transcendental, religious, god-centred morality can there be any reform of institutions. In the meantime, we can only reform our-selves (and perhaps a few loved ones). 

I make a suggestion at Albion Awakening...

By reading CS Lewis's The Last Battle (seventh and last of the Narnia Chronicles).

I have previously tried to make sense of the term Fascism - but the fact is that it was merely secular anti-Soviet-Communism; which isn't even a thing; and even as a negative-reaction it has long-since disappeared from the world. 

I have never tried to make sense of the term Racism, because that very-obviously isn't a thing.

Since racism is supposed to be the most evil sin in the world; that is a problem - or should be regarded as such...

But since we live in a world that is necessarily insane from incoherence (due to the subtraction of God and the assertion that all is either random or blindly determined) then we, as a culture, have become used-to insane incoherence...

It is the air we breathe.

But of course, nobody can ever refute the presence, or importance, or anything-else, of Fascism and Racism - and when you are a supernatural demon bent on the destruction of all that is good, that fact is a feature, not a bug.

Inside the Whale is a long essay by George Orwell published in 1940; it is one I read more than 40 years ago and again sometime since, and which stuck in my mind as having made some valid criticisms of literary culture in the twentieth century.

So I re-read it yesterday; and was very disappointed!


Now, Orwell is one of those writers who never wrote anything that is altogether not worth reading... because he wouldn't have written anything structured like the preceding sentence! Orwell developed a tremendously sinewy style of clear positive statement. He also wrote in a very personal and opinionated way; yet (somehow) never egotistically. And he strove to be honest.

Since he was an interesting person, he wrote many interesting things; and did so in a way that sticks in the mind.

But Orwell was basically wrong about Life - which is to say he was incoherent. Not slightly incoherent, but extremely so - and this is brought-out by his verbal clarity, and that honesty which prevented him 'editing' his spontaneously-expressed feelings-views into any kind of coherence.

Inside the Whale is incredibly incoherent; just astonishingly so! In terms of a statement, it is all over the place; and I can't imagine what it is supposed to imply. What I remembered from it was the critique of the then-fashionable Macspaunday group (MacNeice, Spender, Auden, Day-Lewis) of upper-class, communist/ pro-USSR, socially-'engaged', anti-fascist then pacifist ('corduroy panzers' as Orwell called them, when they fled to the USA to escape the war), and homosexually-inclined poets

(Orwell was pro-hetero-sexual-promiscuity, but broadly hostile to homosexuality as he knew it, as Established among the English upper classes. Orwell was indeed a pro-natalist - he regarded a high birth rate as a sign of a healthy national psychology.)


What I had forgotten was that the essay was, actually and in its essence, a critique of everybody and everything that in some way - indeed in many and incompatible ways - annoyed or irritated or bored Orwell. Which seems to have been literally everybody, without any exception (Orwell doesn't much like or respect Henry Miller - the subject of the piece). And that's pretty much all that it is...

Thus Inside the Whale is negativistic and has no positive ideal. From this we get a superficial impression that Orwell is writing from the standpoint of common sense - of the ordinary, decent, working, family Man; but of course he wasn't. He was sympathetic to such people and valued them; but very clearly also found them narrow, boring and trivial. The bulk of Inside the Whale is about the surprising virtues (as Orwell perceives them) of Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer novel - and that book is not by, about, for, or respectful of, genuinely-ordinary people.


I now think I see Orwell's fatal flaw as a thinker, reasoner and commenter - which is that by rejecting God he rejected even the possibility of objective coherence; and instead substituted the mere fact that these were his feelings, each powerfully stated, as each feeling emerged here and now, in a sequence that was tied together only by the fact that it was George Orwell's feeling. And that's it: nothing more.

Orwell is driven to extraordinary inconsistencies by his rejection of God! He simply cannot accept the fact that ordinary people through history have believed in the reality of God and that religion is the most important thing. Orwell is sure that there is no God; so regards the idea as an upper class tool for manipulation -  indeed (and this is a terrible error) Orwell regards national rule on religious principle (theocracy) as identical with totalitarianism - because ruling on behalf of deity can only be fraudulent.

This view makes ordinary Men, through history - who are believers in God, into dupes about the single most important thing in their lives. Which would mean they are - basically - idiots whose views cannot be trusted on any topic.

Or else it means that ordinary men never really believed in God, and always were comfort-seeking materialists at heart; concerned merely with getting by, getting a living, surviving... And I think Orwell sometimes believed just this; believes that the toughness of real life means that people have no time or energy for thinking about Big Issues - matters such as what God is like, what God wants, what Men are supposed to do, and the nature of life after death. Orwell thinks that concern of ideas and morality is a product of comfort and leisure!

Yet, as we now know - we having lived in a world of unprecedented and general peace, prosperity, comfort and convenience for more than 60 years; that Orwell is completely wrong and the opposite is true! It was the upper classes, such as himself, who first had the leisure and opportunity and material optimism to become hedonistic atheists who regard life as purely material; and when these conditions spread down the classes, so did the disaffection with any religious restriction which imposed suffering or stood in the path of comfort and pleasure.


But of course Orwell died at just 45 years old. And at his age I had much the same views as he did. His great virtue was a capacity to learn from experience; and maybe Orwell would in later life have learned about fundamental metaphysical assumptions, in the way that he certainly learned about superficial political assumptions. However, there was not much sign of such incipient wisdom at the time he died; since, perhaps weakened by illness, he re-married: with a young, attractive but notoriously manipulative and (ahem) flirtatious woman just a few months before his demise.

At the time of his death, and considering the 'positive message' of 1984; I don't think Orwell had gone any deeper than the lethal illusion of the sexual revolution: that sex - freed from religious constraints - could and should replace God as the focus of Life. As a member of the upper classes, Orwell had already experienced and embraced the sexual revolution (in the earliest form of extra-martial promiscuity positively regarded) a couple of generations before it later filtered-down to the common man.

So, in the end, I am forced to regard Orwell as a great writer of genuinely-memorable - but mostly negative and critical and hope-destroying - fragments; and as such wholly representative of the (evil-tending) incoherence and subjectivism that has plagued Western intellectual life. This scattergun destructivism, presumably, is why Orwell gets cited-in-support by almost everyone in mainstream politics; from Margaret Thatcher to the extreme Left! - he provides excellent cover for attacking enemies, because everybody shares some of Orwells many enemies.

Orwell was, in fact, a major contributor to exactly the cancerous cultural decadence and decline - and indeed totalitarianism - that a part of him so much loathed. Because totalitarianism - transhumanism and the omni-monitoring and micro-control of thought in pursuit of material and hedonic goals - is an inevitable end-point of the atheism that was Orwell's foundational belief.  

I am reading an interesting and amusing book called The Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena by the (late great) John Michell and Bob Rickard - and it struck me that, although some people call for miracles to 'prove' the reality of God; the modern world is immune to miracles.

Indeed, I think it would probably be counterproductive; because a spectacular mass miracle would surely be interpreted materialistically - as a mass psychosis, or mass deception, a mass scam, or an example of mass mind-control. Certainly, an impressive miracles seen by thousands of people would not be taken as evidence of the reality of a God who is the creator and our loving Father.

This is, perhaps, not so surprising; because all miracles are indirect communications that rely on human senses and human interpretations; and then rely on more human senses and interpretations in communicating the conclusions more widely.

At the level of phenomena, reason and communications; there is a vast (and unbridgeable) gulf between what really happened in a miracle, and the understanding of what happened, in the minds of Men - and this gap has been made de facto infinitely great by the assumptions of modern materialist metaphysics.

We can see that the only kind of knowledge that will suffice for Modern Man is knowledge which is absolutely direct (without any mediation of sensory data, communication, reasoning etc) and absolutely personal (not secondhand, not based on report of others, not dependent on authority).

In other words; Modern Man needs knowledge which is conceptualised as direct and personal - and might be 'explained', perhaps, as either transmitted directly mind-to-mind; or else comprises minds in sympathy, or empathic identity, knowing exactly the same reality: as many minds thinking the same thoughts. 

Therefore, the miracles we ought to be looking for are for our-selves not for 'everybody', and their job is to be graspable, wholly know-able, solidly believe-able by our-selves.

(And so Not a generally-observable public phenomenon, buttressed by that kind of 'objective evidence' that would (supposedly, but not in actuality) prove a miracle to hostile, materialist skeptics...)

And what we seek, we will find: Because personal, direct miracles are needed by Modern Man, therefore miracles are supplied, and in abundance, by our loving God. It is merely a matter of choosing to notice them.

Three youngish women outnumbering two kids! A family?

Perhaps you recognise it? This (ahem) stereotypical family is what I get shoved at me every time I sign into this blog.

In this world it is vital to remember that there are no accidents.

Therefore, the aspirational fun family: no men, ?plural SSM, Total Fertility Rate of 0.66 (less than one third of minimum needed for population replacement).

Self-willed extinction as an ideal?

Comments are closed (don't waste your time on this kind of stuff; I shouldn't be...)

I ponder the balance of benefits and harms at Albion Awakening...

A guest post by Kevin McCall at my Notion Club Papers blog, casts an evolutionary biological eye on the peoples of Tolkien's Middle Earth, in order to understand and explain the crafts genius of dwarves.

Over at Albion Awakening I discuss how Rudolf Steiner's amazingly accurate prophecy of 100 years ago is evidence that angels are working directly on our minds; but that in order for this to be A Good Thing we must become consciously, explicitly aware of the knowledge that the angels are attempting to communicate. The first step is to acknowledge the reality of angels, and the pervasiveness of their influence.