*
Most Western Churches are highly prone to fall into legalism and precision; but these are signs of a lack of spiritual depth, and are themselves false paths.
The true path is of course a middle way - not laxity, not legalistic precision; but not a compromise.
*
The early Church (according to Charles Williams) began to shape itself by discovering what it believed.
It was rather like Tolkien writing the Lord of the Rings - he gradually discovered what it was about. It was not invention, it was not extrapolation nor interpolation - it was a discovery of what was already there but not clearly seen.
When a council - designed to discover what the Church believed - was later found to be wrong, then it was regarded as not-a-council.
This is how things work when the Church is filled with the Holy Ghost.
*
However, when laxity increases because sanctity declines, there is a strong tendency to respond with legalism and precision - with sharp definitions, with increased discipline, with assertions of authority.
This is an error - when sanctity declines, the answer is an increase in sanctity and nothing else will work.
That was the error of the Reformation - to oppose laxity with Legalism. But, insofar as the Reformation really was an increase in sanctity (and it really was to a significant extent) - then that was to the Good.
And perhaps has often been the case with heresy - the benefits of heresy come from the increase in sanctity - and there often are such benefits even when the heresy is overall harmful or even evil in its ultimate tendency.
*
So the 18th century Evangelical/ Nonconformist 'revival' (Wesley, Methodism etc) did Good insofar as it was linked with devoutness and spirituality.
So did the almost-oppositely-inclined 19th century Anglo-Catholic revival do Good insofar it revived devoutness and zeal in the Established church.
By contrast, 20th century Anglican liberalism is an almost-unmixed evil since it was not only heretical, but associated with reduced sanctity, zeal, and spirituality.
*
From where we are now there is - I would think - zero-probability of making people more spiritual by more and more-precise legalism and more strict enforcement.
It must come (if it can come) from increased sanctity, probably from a revival of ascetic monasticism - that is, from example, from intercession and other spiritual means.
Insofar as this leads to greater sanctity, then those who achieve it will know just exactly what to do, but at present we do not know what to do, therefore we cannot make people do it.
But if we are trying to be more precise and strict about what to do from our current position of low spiritual development, then we will probably do more harm than Good.
*
Tuesday 10 January 2012
Monday 9 January 2012
What happens when corruption comes from leaders - even Church leaders?
*
It seems likely that our society has been, is being, led into corruption.
This is not to absolve those-who-are-led from responsibility - clearly they should not follow evil leaders.
And these evil leaders are almost everywhere - found in all large and powerful organizations. Not necessarily dominant, not always in a majority, but having a very significant effect.
*
This, of course, applies to the institutional church (to all the institutional churches - when they are large and powerful).
Again and again we perceive that the fish is rotting from the head down.
Again and again we perceive that the best people are almost-never at the top of institutions, but can rise no higher than the middle.
*
This does mean that teachings based on obedience require at least modification. If our primary ethic is obedience then we will be led into the abyss.
Is obedience a sufficient excuse for a Christian to follow church leaders wherever they may take you? Probably not.
At least, I do not detect that obedience should be the primary virtue - a virtue to which Love, Courage and all the other virtues ought to be sacrificed.
*
It is an apparent paradox of traditionalists living in an age of change that they assert the necessity of hierarchy yet are themselves insubordinate.
But (although insubordination may be due to pride or other sins) it is not necessarily a paradox - merely recognition that there are more important things than obedience, and that disobedience is sometimes necessary.
*
Indeed, surely disobedience is more-and-more necessary to Christian reactionaries all the time?
Surely obedience is, nowadays, more often an excuse, than a virtue?
To develop a habit of disobedience to the leadership but without becoming consumed by spiritual pride - that is where the habitual nature of the thing may be helpful - that seems to be something like the task before us.
To assume that the leadership is wrong about most things most of the time and should therefore habitually be disobeyed; but that sometimes they may be right about some things and sometimes we should go along with what they want...
*
It seems likely that our society has been, is being, led into corruption.
This is not to absolve those-who-are-led from responsibility - clearly they should not follow evil leaders.
And these evil leaders are almost everywhere - found in all large and powerful organizations. Not necessarily dominant, not always in a majority, but having a very significant effect.
*
This, of course, applies to the institutional church (to all the institutional churches - when they are large and powerful).
Again and again we perceive that the fish is rotting from the head down.
Again and again we perceive that the best people are almost-never at the top of institutions, but can rise no higher than the middle.
*
This does mean that teachings based on obedience require at least modification. If our primary ethic is obedience then we will be led into the abyss.
Is obedience a sufficient excuse for a Christian to follow church leaders wherever they may take you? Probably not.
At least, I do not detect that obedience should be the primary virtue - a virtue to which Love, Courage and all the other virtues ought to be sacrificed.
*
It is an apparent paradox of traditionalists living in an age of change that they assert the necessity of hierarchy yet are themselves insubordinate.
But (although insubordination may be due to pride or other sins) it is not necessarily a paradox - merely recognition that there are more important things than obedience, and that disobedience is sometimes necessary.
*
Indeed, surely disobedience is more-and-more necessary to Christian reactionaries all the time?
Surely obedience is, nowadays, more often an excuse, than a virtue?
To develop a habit of disobedience to the leadership but without becoming consumed by spiritual pride - that is where the habitual nature of the thing may be helpful - that seems to be something like the task before us.
To assume that the leadership is wrong about most things most of the time and should therefore habitually be disobeyed; but that sometimes they may be right about some things and sometimes we should go along with what they want...
*
Sunday 8 January 2012
Contraception and the Roman Catholic hierarchy
*
It is understandable that opposition to contraception has become, in the popular mind, the main defining feature of Roman Catholicism, or at least its senior hierarchy.
And it is notable that the RC Church hierarchy has utterly failed to convince its flock to follow this teaching - since the most RC dominated countries of Europe are among those with the lowest fertility (Ireland, Spain, Italy).
*
To have failed does not, of course, mean that the RC hierarchy were wrong. Indeed, they may have had little choice in the matter since sex-without-conception was the main (ahem) thrust of the culture war when Leftism clashed with institutional religion from the mid-1960s onwards.
But the deep problem of the RC emphasis on no-contraception is that it strikes so many people as senseless - specifically, I mean in breach of common sense.
*
This is probably because the RC opposition to contraception is not common sense, nor is it core Christian teaching; rather it is a distal, logico-philosophical consequence of some core Christian teachings.
In particular, the opposition is expressed in Thomistic terms of the intrinsic function of sex, as inferred from the complementarity of sexes, that they fit together - plus some scriptural back-up, and therefore the permissible occasions and types of sex.
All this is way too fine-spun and drawn-out for people to comprehend - especially modern people with their short attention span and impatience.
*
The obvious core basis of RC opposition to contraception is pro-natalism - that marriage should aim to be fertile, that having children is good, that larger families are better (so long as they are self-supporting, at any rate).
Yet, the attempt to yoke contraception to pro-natalism fails - there is no necessary nor observable reason why contraception cannot be linked with pro-natalism - as among the Mormons.
(Mormons are not exactly pro-, but in practice not-against-contraception, and nearly all Mormons use contraception. Yet Mormons, unlike Roman Catholics, have been successful in their pro-natalism, with significantly above-replacement family sizes (greater than 2.1 children per family) and much larger families than RCs especially among the wealthiest and most educated.)
*
And, indeed, there is something terrifying in the modern world about pro-natalism without contraception - fertility can get terrifyingly out of control.
For tribal hunter-gatherers, living on a hunter gatherer diet, the maximium number of babies a woman can have is probably around six - because menarche is late and pregnancies are spaced-out by lactation acting as a natural contraceptive (and if this fails the newborn baby will nearly always die, be abandoned or killed - since there is not enough milk for two and the older child is usually privileged).
(Of these six, an average of two survive to reproduce, in the steady population state.)
On a more modern, agriculture based diet, with high levels of fat and protein, menarche is earlier and lactation is no longer a natural contraceptive and women can have a lot more pregnancies going to term - ten births is not unusual, and even more is not uncommon.
Such fertility rates either leads to massive death rates among children (e.g. about eight deaths per family), or else requires rapid economic growth or massive support from outside the family.
This was the norm for pre-industrial revolution societies: the average peasant had near-zero surviving children - regardless of fertility.
*
Of course, there is an alternative - celibate marriage. That is possible among the most devout of certain populations with high intelligence and conscientiousness; but is not possible for most of the people in the world most of the time. Celibacy must be enforced on them, or it won't happen. And the sanctions must be extreme, encompassing the death of surplus children - otherwise the celibate devout will merely be amplifying the numbers of incontinent apostates, generation upon generation...
*
So, this is the reality of the Roman Catholic combination of pro-natalism and anti-contraception under modern conditions.
I am not saying that this is an unacceptable reality, because it was the state of affairs for some thousands of years; but I have never seen it honestly set out.
*
Now, of course, people don't exactly and explicitly realize that this is the reality of Roman Catholic teaching on contraception - but they do sense intuitively, by common sense, that combining pro-natalism with anti-contraception under modern conditions leads to unacceptable outcomes: either ten kids leading to impoverishment plus/ minus life on welfare - or else a life of reluctant monkish celibacy.
*
So, which is more important? Pro-natalism or anti-contraception?
We can see that modern Roman Catholics have voted with their feet, or rather loins, to abandon both.
My first point is pragmatic (merely) and is that pro-natalism is vastly more important than anti-contraception; and given the perceived conflict between the two, pro-natalism should have been what the RC hierarchy pushed hard, while saying little or nothing about contraception.
*
My second point is theological/ religious - which is that the Church should take care to be definite about core teaching, and indefinite about derived teachings - since the derived teachings are vulnerable both to logical errors and - more importantly - to the errors of logic.
In my opinion, it is an intrinsic flaw of Western Christendom (including the Roman Catholic Church, and also the Protestant denominations) that they feel compelled to give a philosophical opinion, indeed lay down the law, on all conceivable matters - to create a coherent, internally-non-contradictory and fully-comprehensive intellectual structure.
Yet Christianity is a religion of mystery and incomprehension - right at its core. Philosophy and Law are an optional extra - and should not be allowed to usurp the core mystery. When the specific and the explicit usurp the mystery we have the tail wagging the dog.
Christianity cannot win battles of law and logic on worldly matters like the precise details of sexual practice - rather the 'answers' to these must emerge (for each person) from the primary recognition of the core mystery.
The core mystery, in this instance, being to do with the mystical unity of Mankind (at the level of souls, a web of salvation) and the special (sacramental) importance of marriage and birth - this was one of the distinctive teachings that set Christianity apart from paganism.
*
In a wider sense, the modern Christian Church needs desperately to recover its mystical focus, even at the cost of setting aside its focus on specific moral conflicts.
People break the Christian Laws because they cannot understand, cannot feel, the reason for these precise Laws - and without this feeling the Laws seem merely arbitrary.
And sometimes the Laws are - if not arbitrary - then not tightly consequential. Some Christian Laws are the result of a chain of logical reasoning, and only as secure as the process of logic - which is to say not necessarily secure. Natural Law and Revelation trump logic.
*
I do not, of course, mean that Christianity should go-along with modernity and accept its 'reforms' and constraints - but these should be reacted to simply by getting on with things, and refusing to budge on core issues - without argument and 'rational' discourse, preferably; just a stubborn holding to tradition and ancient wisdom in the face of insatiable desire for change and progress fueled by shallow nihilism.
In other words, we ought to live by the built-in assumption that under modern conditions any proposed change is almost certain to be wrong and harmful and must therefore be resisted for at least a few generations - after which it may cautiously be tried-out.
In sum, my discomfort and indeed irritation with the Roman Catholic focus on contraception and other issues of precise sexual conduct is part of a conviction that the Christian Church must at this point in history eschew worldliness as much as possible, to develop and emphasize instead the Heavenly, mystical and prayerful, salvific core.
*
Christ followed the spirit of The Law, even as he broke the letter of specific laws.
Justice is not the outcome of applying specific explicit laws; but the use of specific and explicit laws to attain Justice.
The same applies to specific ethical rules, such as those pertaining to sex within marriage.
*
Legalistic hyper-correctness is not a solution to laxity; it is indeed merely to substitute one form of sin for another.
The only solution to laxity is sanctity.
*
It is understandable that opposition to contraception has become, in the popular mind, the main defining feature of Roman Catholicism, or at least its senior hierarchy.
And it is notable that the RC Church hierarchy has utterly failed to convince its flock to follow this teaching - since the most RC dominated countries of Europe are among those with the lowest fertility (Ireland, Spain, Italy).
*
To have failed does not, of course, mean that the RC hierarchy were wrong. Indeed, they may have had little choice in the matter since sex-without-conception was the main (ahem) thrust of the culture war when Leftism clashed with institutional religion from the mid-1960s onwards.
But the deep problem of the RC emphasis on no-contraception is that it strikes so many people as senseless - specifically, I mean in breach of common sense.
*
This is probably because the RC opposition to contraception is not common sense, nor is it core Christian teaching; rather it is a distal, logico-philosophical consequence of some core Christian teachings.
In particular, the opposition is expressed in Thomistic terms of the intrinsic function of sex, as inferred from the complementarity of sexes, that they fit together - plus some scriptural back-up, and therefore the permissible occasions and types of sex.
All this is way too fine-spun and drawn-out for people to comprehend - especially modern people with their short attention span and impatience.
*
The obvious core basis of RC opposition to contraception is pro-natalism - that marriage should aim to be fertile, that having children is good, that larger families are better (so long as they are self-supporting, at any rate).
Yet, the attempt to yoke contraception to pro-natalism fails - there is no necessary nor observable reason why contraception cannot be linked with pro-natalism - as among the Mormons.
(Mormons are not exactly pro-, but in practice not-against-contraception, and nearly all Mormons use contraception. Yet Mormons, unlike Roman Catholics, have been successful in their pro-natalism, with significantly above-replacement family sizes (greater than 2.1 children per family) and much larger families than RCs especially among the wealthiest and most educated.)
*
And, indeed, there is something terrifying in the modern world about pro-natalism without contraception - fertility can get terrifyingly out of control.
For tribal hunter-gatherers, living on a hunter gatherer diet, the maximium number of babies a woman can have is probably around six - because menarche is late and pregnancies are spaced-out by lactation acting as a natural contraceptive (and if this fails the newborn baby will nearly always die, be abandoned or killed - since there is not enough milk for two and the older child is usually privileged).
(Of these six, an average of two survive to reproduce, in the steady population state.)
On a more modern, agriculture based diet, with high levels of fat and protein, menarche is earlier and lactation is no longer a natural contraceptive and women can have a lot more pregnancies going to term - ten births is not unusual, and even more is not uncommon.
Such fertility rates either leads to massive death rates among children (e.g. about eight deaths per family), or else requires rapid economic growth or massive support from outside the family.
This was the norm for pre-industrial revolution societies: the average peasant had near-zero surviving children - regardless of fertility.
*
Of course, there is an alternative - celibate marriage. That is possible among the most devout of certain populations with high intelligence and conscientiousness; but is not possible for most of the people in the world most of the time. Celibacy must be enforced on them, or it won't happen. And the sanctions must be extreme, encompassing the death of surplus children - otherwise the celibate devout will merely be amplifying the numbers of incontinent apostates, generation upon generation...
*
So, this is the reality of the Roman Catholic combination of pro-natalism and anti-contraception under modern conditions.
I am not saying that this is an unacceptable reality, because it was the state of affairs for some thousands of years; but I have never seen it honestly set out.
*
Now, of course, people don't exactly and explicitly realize that this is the reality of Roman Catholic teaching on contraception - but they do sense intuitively, by common sense, that combining pro-natalism with anti-contraception under modern conditions leads to unacceptable outcomes: either ten kids leading to impoverishment plus/ minus life on welfare - or else a life of reluctant monkish celibacy.
*
So, which is more important? Pro-natalism or anti-contraception?
We can see that modern Roman Catholics have voted with their feet, or rather loins, to abandon both.
My first point is pragmatic (merely) and is that pro-natalism is vastly more important than anti-contraception; and given the perceived conflict between the two, pro-natalism should have been what the RC hierarchy pushed hard, while saying little or nothing about contraception.
*
My second point is theological/ religious - which is that the Church should take care to be definite about core teaching, and indefinite about derived teachings - since the derived teachings are vulnerable both to logical errors and - more importantly - to the errors of logic.
In my opinion, it is an intrinsic flaw of Western Christendom (including the Roman Catholic Church, and also the Protestant denominations) that they feel compelled to give a philosophical opinion, indeed lay down the law, on all conceivable matters - to create a coherent, internally-non-contradictory and fully-comprehensive intellectual structure.
Yet Christianity is a religion of mystery and incomprehension - right at its core. Philosophy and Law are an optional extra - and should not be allowed to usurp the core mystery. When the specific and the explicit usurp the mystery we have the tail wagging the dog.
Christianity cannot win battles of law and logic on worldly matters like the precise details of sexual practice - rather the 'answers' to these must emerge (for each person) from the primary recognition of the core mystery.
The core mystery, in this instance, being to do with the mystical unity of Mankind (at the level of souls, a web of salvation) and the special (sacramental) importance of marriage and birth - this was one of the distinctive teachings that set Christianity apart from paganism.
*
In a wider sense, the modern Christian Church needs desperately to recover its mystical focus, even at the cost of setting aside its focus on specific moral conflicts.
People break the Christian Laws because they cannot understand, cannot feel, the reason for these precise Laws - and without this feeling the Laws seem merely arbitrary.
And sometimes the Laws are - if not arbitrary - then not tightly consequential. Some Christian Laws are the result of a chain of logical reasoning, and only as secure as the process of logic - which is to say not necessarily secure. Natural Law and Revelation trump logic.
*
I do not, of course, mean that Christianity should go-along with modernity and accept its 'reforms' and constraints - but these should be reacted to simply by getting on with things, and refusing to budge on core issues - without argument and 'rational' discourse, preferably; just a stubborn holding to tradition and ancient wisdom in the face of insatiable desire for change and progress fueled by shallow nihilism.
In other words, we ought to live by the built-in assumption that under modern conditions any proposed change is almost certain to be wrong and harmful and must therefore be resisted for at least a few generations - after which it may cautiously be tried-out.
In sum, my discomfort and indeed irritation with the Roman Catholic focus on contraception and other issues of precise sexual conduct is part of a conviction that the Christian Church must at this point in history eschew worldliness as much as possible, to develop and emphasize instead the Heavenly, mystical and prayerful, salvific core.
*
Christ followed the spirit of The Law, even as he broke the letter of specific laws.
Justice is not the outcome of applying specific explicit laws; but the use of specific and explicit laws to attain Justice.
The same applies to specific ethical rules, such as those pertaining to sex within marriage.
*
Legalistic hyper-correctness is not a solution to laxity; it is indeed merely to substitute one form of sin for another.
The only solution to laxity is sanctity.
*
Saturday 7 January 2012
We must now throw the baby out with the bathwater - there is no alternative...
*
We are inculcated into modernity. Through childhood the unity of our experience is broken up and in teens we emerge into consciousness with already fragmented thinking.
We become adults already pre-alienated - and with no concept of how to heal this alienation - because using modern thought it cannot be healed (but only by retrieving ancient thought).
*
It has been the great illusion of the past couple of hundred years that there is some way, some *trick*, by which we can retain the advantages of fragmentation (i.e. retain the advantages of specialization in science, law, art, public administration etc) while glue-ing all these fragments back into unity.
There is thus a vast tradition, going back to The Romantics and up to New Age, of people who diagnose the problem brilliantly but utterly fail to solve it, because they seek a new solution (e.g a 'new' religion, or spirituality).
Working through these failures - learning, testing and discarding them - took me more than thirty years.
*
We are now in the situation where the baby will (indeed must) be thrown-out with the bathwater.
Because trying to preserve the baby will lead to drowning by the bathwater...
(The baby is the good things of modernity, the bathwater is the tide of total destruction of all things Western that is overwhelming modernity - from within and from without.)
*
We are in the situation where destroying the One Ring will also and inevitably destroy the power of the High Elves (because this depends on the Elven Rings hence comes, ultimately, from the same source of the One Ring). And where the High Elves have nobody to blame but themselves, since they tried to use evil to promote Good, with the inevitable result.
*
We are inculcated into modernity. Through childhood the unity of our experience is broken up and in teens we emerge into consciousness with already fragmented thinking.
We become adults already pre-alienated - and with no concept of how to heal this alienation - because using modern thought it cannot be healed (but only by retrieving ancient thought).
*
It has been the great illusion of the past couple of hundred years that there is some way, some *trick*, by which we can retain the advantages of fragmentation (i.e. retain the advantages of specialization in science, law, art, public administration etc) while glue-ing all these fragments back into unity.
There is thus a vast tradition, going back to The Romantics and up to New Age, of people who diagnose the problem brilliantly but utterly fail to solve it, because they seek a new solution (e.g a 'new' religion, or spirituality).
Working through these failures - learning, testing and discarding them - took me more than thirty years.
*
We are now in the situation where the baby will (indeed must) be thrown-out with the bathwater.
Because trying to preserve the baby will lead to drowning by the bathwater...
(The baby is the good things of modernity, the bathwater is the tide of total destruction of all things Western that is overwhelming modernity - from within and from without.)
*
We are in the situation where destroying the One Ring will also and inevitably destroy the power of the High Elves (because this depends on the Elven Rings hence comes, ultimately, from the same source of the One Ring). And where the High Elves have nobody to blame but themselves, since they tried to use evil to promote Good, with the inevitable result.
*
Psalm 8 - which 'version' is best?
*
EITHER:
The King James or (Authorized) version:
O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
*
OR
New International Version of the Bible (one of the most popular translations in recent use):
LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens.
Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.
When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.
LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
*
This is a fair comparison for me, since the NIV was the first version of the Bible I read extensively (and aesthetically it is far-from-the-worst translation), and it is used at two of the three Churches where I most often worship.
But - Good Heavens! Why would any sane person reject the first in favour of the second?
The first as great a piece of poetry as anything in English, and as profound a devotion as anything I have come across; the second... is... inferior.
Little wonder why the Psalms have lost their properly central place in worship...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/08/psalms-and-cs-lewis-lewis-nods.html
*
Note: The Book of Common Prayer, containing the daily liturgy for Anglicans, uses a different and translation of the Psalms, done earlier than the King James Bible and by Miles Coverdale.
The BCP Psalter is very good indeed; but not as good as the KJB Psalter - to go from the BCP to the KJB is like the difference between somebody like Spenser, or Sidney and then Shakespeare.
Psalm 8 - BCP/ Coverdale:
O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world; thou that hast set thy glory above the heavens!
Out of the mouth of very babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies,
that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
For I will consider thy heavens, even the works of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Thou madest him lower than the angels, to crown him with glory and worship.
Thou makest him to have dominion of the works of thy hands; and thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet
all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,
the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea, and whatsoever walketh through the paths of the seas.
O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world!
*
EITHER:
The King James or (Authorized) version:
O LORD, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
*
OR
New International Version of the Bible (one of the most popular translations in recent use):
LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens.
Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger.
When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands; you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas.
LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!
*
This is a fair comparison for me, since the NIV was the first version of the Bible I read extensively (and aesthetically it is far-from-the-worst translation), and it is used at two of the three Churches where I most often worship.
But - Good Heavens! Why would any sane person reject the first in favour of the second?
The first as great a piece of poetry as anything in English, and as profound a devotion as anything I have come across; the second... is... inferior.
Little wonder why the Psalms have lost their properly central place in worship...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/08/psalms-and-cs-lewis-lewis-nods.html
*
Note: The Book of Common Prayer, containing the daily liturgy for Anglicans, uses a different and translation of the Psalms, done earlier than the King James Bible and by Miles Coverdale.
The BCP Psalter is very good indeed; but not as good as the KJB Psalter - to go from the BCP to the KJB is like the difference between somebody like Spenser, or Sidney and then Shakespeare.
Psalm 8 - BCP/ Coverdale:
O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world; thou that hast set thy glory above the heavens!
Out of the mouth of very babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies,
that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.
For I will consider thy heavens, even the works of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained.
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
Thou madest him lower than the angels, to crown him with glory and worship.
Thou makest him to have dominion of the works of thy hands; and thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet
all sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field,
the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea, and whatsoever walketh through the paths of the seas.
O Lord our Governor, how excellent is thy Name in all the world!
*
Friday 6 January 2012
The patriarchal beard versus the anti-patriarchal beard
*
I have always been clean shaven (and short-haired - even before it started to recede and thin) - a typical Roundhead Puritan in fact - and this description probably fits fairly well with my natural disposition.
But it has always seemed surprising that to be clean shaven has been the norm for the past several generations.
*
Surprising, too, that beards fall into two main categories: the patriarchal and the anti-patriarchal (or Leftist) beard: these seem to be perennials.
(I leave aside temporary fashions for sculpted facial hair - moustaches, goatees, long sideburns etc - I focus on the full beard in its natural more-or-less natural form.)
*
It is notable that the full beard is worn by patriarchs such as Orthodox Jews, Muslim clerics, Eastern Orthodox Priests, Amish (well, this shaggy rim-beard is a bit more of a tribal symbol) - the beard apparently signifies maleness and authority.
But a similar beard may be sported by beatnicks, hippies, feminist men, communistically-inclined scientists, health food shop owners and the like - where it signifies something near the opposite: gentleness, pacifism, abstraction?...
There are patriarchal religious exceptions. Roman Catholic priests, who are of course not strictly patriarchs, seem never to be bearded (maybe they are forbidden?) and nearly all Mormons seem clean shaven (Orson Scott Card has a goatee).
*
Conclusions?
I accept that men are supposed to be bearded, and there is something a bit warped about the norm of being clean-shaven - it probably signifies some kind of narrow fanaticism (certainly it does in my case...).
But then why the anti-patriarchal beard?
Best guess is subversion. Look like a patriarch, behave like... something very different - hence destroying the power of the beard as masculine symbol.
Any better ideas?
*
I have always been clean shaven (and short-haired - even before it started to recede and thin) - a typical Roundhead Puritan in fact - and this description probably fits fairly well with my natural disposition.
But it has always seemed surprising that to be clean shaven has been the norm for the past several generations.
*
Surprising, too, that beards fall into two main categories: the patriarchal and the anti-patriarchal (or Leftist) beard: these seem to be perennials.
(I leave aside temporary fashions for sculpted facial hair - moustaches, goatees, long sideburns etc - I focus on the full beard in its natural more-or-less natural form.)
*
It is notable that the full beard is worn by patriarchs such as Orthodox Jews, Muslim clerics, Eastern Orthodox Priests, Amish (well, this shaggy rim-beard is a bit more of a tribal symbol) - the beard apparently signifies maleness and authority.
But a similar beard may be sported by beatnicks, hippies, feminist men, communistically-inclined scientists, health food shop owners and the like - where it signifies something near the opposite: gentleness, pacifism, abstraction?...
There are patriarchal religious exceptions. Roman Catholic priests, who are of course not strictly patriarchs, seem never to be bearded (maybe they are forbidden?) and nearly all Mormons seem clean shaven (Orson Scott Card has a goatee).
*
Conclusions?
I accept that men are supposed to be bearded, and there is something a bit warped about the norm of being clean-shaven - it probably signifies some kind of narrow fanaticism (certainly it does in my case...).
But then why the anti-patriarchal beard?
Best guess is subversion. Look like a patriarch, behave like... something very different - hence destroying the power of the beard as masculine symbol.
Any better ideas?
*
Thursday 5 January 2012
A letter from Kristor on Free Will and Determinism
*
This is excerpted from a letter by penfriend and commenter Kristor, in relation to:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/free-will-versus-left-brain-fusion-of.html
and
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/explaining-zenos-paradoxes.html
*
This is excerpted from a letter by penfriend and commenter Kristor, in relation to:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/free-will-versus-left-brain-fusion-of.html
and
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2012/01/explaining-zenos-paradoxes.html
*
The first thing I would say is that while the left and right brains may process their data using different sorts of algorithms, so that one half treats of things in terms of linear causal chains while the other treats of them in terms of holistic field superpositions [how different, really, is a vector sum from a field superposition, when push comes to shove?], nevertheless they must both be subject to ontological causal inputs from their pasts. I.e., however things might seem to be different to the two sides of the brain, the world as it impinges upon them causally must impinge upon both to the same ontological extent and via the same ontological mechanisms. The two halves of the brain do not, after all, inhabit different metaphysical causal orders.
So, any resolution of the seeming contradiction between freedom and causal order – for that is what we are talking about – must be made available to both of them, must cover both of them, equally. The resolution cannot be derived from the differences in the way that they treat data. The resolution must rescue all sorts of creatures from the contradiction.
Some related items that are of interest:
1. The problem of the resolution of freedom with causal order is a department of the problem of the resolution of creaturely freedom with Divine foreknowledge/Providence. This is a clue that should point us in the direction of searching for an ultimate resolution in the reconciliation of the reality of time and temporality – which is to say, simply, causation and a causal order, things happening, and happening to each other, and affecting each other, and all coordinated – with the superordinate reality of eternity – which is to say, not Eleatic immobility, not the impossibility of motion, but rather the subsumption of all subsidiary, creaturely motions in the immense and singular Divine motion, or act.
2. If there is causation, if there is happening, then reality cannot be continuous. If one thing is to cause another, then the causer and the caused must be different from each other, and disparate. If they are not truly disparate, they are then but one thing, and there is not properly speaking any causal relation between them, but rather a relation of unity. So this means that if there is a past that is going to have causal effect upon this present moment, that is going to influence this present moment, then that past and its events must all be different entities than this present moment. So that, if things do really happen, then they must happen quantally. Reality must be discontinuous if there are really events.
3. Given a certain configuration of past events, given a cosmic history, It is possible for a current eventuating event that arises from them as its data to turn out a number of different ways that are lawfully related to them. There are a number of different ways that the probabilities implicit in the [wholly determined] Schrodinger equation may turn out, without escaping the constraints of that equation. What evolves deterministically, then, is the range of possible orderly outcomes of a given past set of events. The predetermination of a given event that is imposed upon it by its past, then, does not constrain it to only one possible outcome. If it did, there would be no sense in talking about “probabilities” or “outcomes.” For, if an event were wholly determined by its past, down to the last jot and tittle, why then it would be nothing but a feature of that past. It would not in that case be a real entity, a real event. The complete and utter predetermination of events is the elimination of events as an ontological category – and, thus, also an elimination of entities.
4. Items 2 and 3 obtain with equal force whether we construe causation in a left-brained, linear fashion, as of the vector sum of particular interactions, or in a right-brained holistic fashion, as a superposition of fields. Again, what is the difference that makes a difference between a vector sum and a superposition of fields? Are these not merely different mathematical formalizations of the same basic notion: of causal inputs delivered to a locus in the extensive continuum from its past?
5. NB also that a vector sum or integral can be just as finally, teleologically oriented toward and ordered toward a strange attractor as a field.
So, whether we treat of causation using fields or vectors, we still face the problem of freedom versus predetermination. What then is the resolution? Put in terms of the Schrodinger equation, what is it that does the determination of what precisely will be the outcome of a given quantum situation? What is it that might prevent that outcome from being always and everywhere the one that is under the equation the most probable? I.e., how can there be more than one lawful outcome of a given step in the evolution of the equation?
The resolution, then, it seems to me, is provided by a distinction between the past of an event and the event itself. The past as past is fixed, determined, changeless (tace for the moment on backward causation mediated by prayer, that takes place in the supratemporal causal order). The past has to be just exactly, changelessly, what it is, in order to function as a completed set of data for the processes of the present moment of eventuation. If you are going to have inputs to the present, as yet unfinished moment of eventuation, then those inputs must be themselves finished. If they are not finished, then they just don’t yet fully exist to function for any subsequent events as causal inputs. It is, then, the past that is fixed, determined. The Schrodinger equation arising from a given past is determined because that past is determined.
And, therefore, it is the present moment that is free and – despite the constraints derived from its past, and formalized in the Schrodinger equation – not yet wholly determined.
What then feels to us like a unity of experience, a unification of disparate feelings in the integrity of the present moment – this unification being the matter of the binding “problem” – is just our present feeling of the feelings of past moments. A present moment is an integration and concrescence of impressions, feelings, of past events. And this is so whether we formalize the unification using vectors of particular interactions, or superpositions of fields.
[I got everything I have so far said from Whitehead. He doesn’t say it all explicitly, but it is all implicit in his metaphysics. Everything from here forward I got from Boethius, and Aquinas.]
Now notice that this is not the ultimate resolution of the problem. For, while we may so far have dealt with the problem of determinism versus free will by ascribing the former to the past and the latter to the present (and, a fortiori, to the future), we have not yet dealt with the problem of creaturely freedom versus Divine Providence.
To resolve that contradiction, we must transcend time altogether, and remember that temporal relations are characteristics of an eternal state of affairs that comprehends all events, whatever their spatiotemporal loci. That that state of affairs is eternal does not mean that the events that constitute it – i.e., the set of events that includes all events whatsoever, of whatever spatio-temporal locus in all actual causal orders, all worlds (in secula seculorum) – are not free. God’s eternal act is free, even though (being eternal) it is also necessary. So likewise with everything he knows, including all creaturely events. Everything that happens happens freely, even though it is eternally known, and thus necessary.
Thus the causal inputs of a temporal event are present to it only via the medium of the Divine Providence. It is God who forms the Receptacle for creaturely eventuation. He is the causal order, He the nexus. The past is real to the present, is “thingish” to the present, by virtue of its reality to God. We access the past via God; He is the medium of the causal influence of the past upon the present.
So Leibniz, Spinoza and Descartes were all right in ascribing to God in their various ways the ultimate function of relating and coordinating all events that, absent his provision of an ontological milieu for causal relations, would not – nay, could not – be related to each other at all. Things are orderly insofar as they are ordered in the Divine comprehension. And a thing that is not ordered in the Divine comprehension is not ordered at all.
Kristor
PS: what Zeno disproved was the impossibility of motion and causation in a continuous state of affairs. Motion is not, however, paradoxical in a state of affairs that is discontinuous. In such a state of affairs, things can be really disparate, so that there can be a relation of motion between them. It is obvious that if events are continuous with each other then there cannot be motion between them, for there is in that case no disparity between them; and where there is no disparity there is only unity.
Newton and Planck both in different ways ratified Zeno. Planck’s quantum of action is the physical implementation of the Newtonian infinitesimal.
*
The quantitative concept of sin - a deadly error
*
Moderns tend to regard sin in a quantitative manner - as if the question of whether someone is 'a sinner' could be decided by weighing his good against his bad qualities and seeing where the preponderance lay; or taking an average of his behaviour and seeing whether it was on the side of sin or not.
This metaphor is wrong because the calculus is atheist - the quantitative calculus assumes the non-existence of God; indeed it is an attempt to retain morality after God has been subtracted from the worldview.
*
Sin is not about good and bad acts but about being turned towards or away-from God.
A man who does not sin is not a man that does only good acts, he is a man turned always towards God.
A sinner is a man who turns away from God, sometimes. In other words everyone.
*
Yet it may take just one single sin to keep a man turned-away from God, permanently.
It could be something 'trivial' - some clinging to something worldly, some mere distraction. But if it keeps a man turned away from God it will suffice: it does suffice.
*
In the end damnation is refusal of the offer of salvation. The offer is made to all, perhaps. Anything which leads a man to refuse salvation when offered is a deadly sin, deadly to his soul.
The more trivial-seeming, the more effective the sin may be - since it arouses no revulsion, no reaction; we do not guard against it....
And we may feel that we can compensate for trivial-seeming sins, by heroic good works (or something) on the quantitative concept. But so long as we stay turned-away from God nothing will work.
*
This is the particular hazard of modernity. It is asif the whole of modern life is set up to keep us turned away from God all the time yet by such trivial worldly matters that we feel that - surely - we cannot be sinners, surely the balance must be in our favour - surely we we not be damned for merely wasting our lives in frenetic busyness?
No we won't be damned, we will refuse salvation - indeed, we may not even recognise or understand the offer.
*
A consequence is that Christianity ought to be - in these modern conditions - a turning-towards God; I mean the main goal should be to help people to glimpse God (and know that this is God they glimpse) and thereby reveal their habitual state of being turned away. Moderns cannot be terrified out of their sin, because they see no place to escape from the world - they need to be shown a glimpse of the exit.
*
Moderns tend to regard sin in a quantitative manner - as if the question of whether someone is 'a sinner' could be decided by weighing his good against his bad qualities and seeing where the preponderance lay; or taking an average of his behaviour and seeing whether it was on the side of sin or not.
This metaphor is wrong because the calculus is atheist - the quantitative calculus assumes the non-existence of God; indeed it is an attempt to retain morality after God has been subtracted from the worldview.
*
Sin is not about good and bad acts but about being turned towards or away-from God.
A man who does not sin is not a man that does only good acts, he is a man turned always towards God.
A sinner is a man who turns away from God, sometimes. In other words everyone.
*
Yet it may take just one single sin to keep a man turned-away from God, permanently.
It could be something 'trivial' - some clinging to something worldly, some mere distraction. But if it keeps a man turned away from God it will suffice: it does suffice.
*
In the end damnation is refusal of the offer of salvation. The offer is made to all, perhaps. Anything which leads a man to refuse salvation when offered is a deadly sin, deadly to his soul.
The more trivial-seeming, the more effective the sin may be - since it arouses no revulsion, no reaction; we do not guard against it....
And we may feel that we can compensate for trivial-seeming sins, by heroic good works (or something) on the quantitative concept. But so long as we stay turned-away from God nothing will work.
*
This is the particular hazard of modernity. It is asif the whole of modern life is set up to keep us turned away from God all the time yet by such trivial worldly matters that we feel that - surely - we cannot be sinners, surely the balance must be in our favour - surely we we not be damned for merely wasting our lives in frenetic busyness?
No we won't be damned, we will refuse salvation - indeed, we may not even recognise or understand the offer.
*
A consequence is that Christianity ought to be - in these modern conditions - a turning-towards God; I mean the main goal should be to help people to glimpse God (and know that this is God they glimpse) and thereby reveal their habitual state of being turned away. Moderns cannot be terrified out of their sin, because they see no place to escape from the world - they need to be shown a glimpse of the exit.
*
Wednesday 4 January 2012
Explaining Zeno's paradoxes
*
I was aware from mid-teens of Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise* (for example as a Tortoise and Rabbit in Tom Stoppard's play Jumpers) - but I never properly got around to understanding just precisely what led to the paradox, why the mode of reasoning was wrong.
I see now this was an oversight and an error.
*
The penny dropped when reading pages 137-9 of The Master and his Emissary, by Iain McGilchrist:
Zeno's paradoxes ... rest on the adoption of the left hemisphere's view that every flowing motion in space or time can be resolved into a series of static moments or points that can then be summed to give back the living whole. The 'seamless' fluidity of motion in space or time is 'reduced' to a series, akin to the series of still frames in a cine film.
*
In essence, the paradox arises from the inbuilt assumption that every dynamic phenomenon can be resolved into a series of static units that can then be summed to recreate the dynamic whole.
There is absolutely no grounds for this assumption - this metaphysical assumption concerning the nature of reality, this basic assumption which frames all further analysis - indeed the assumption is obviously refuted by experience as demonstrated by the paradox.
*
(A further assumption is that metaphysics ought not be contradicted by plain, commonsense experience - since the best Ancient Greek philosophy was meant to enrich normal life and plain commonsense experience - not usurp and replace it. This is a major constraint on philosophizing, and if it is abandoned - as modern culture has abandoned it - then philosophy becomes an open-ended and unbounded activity with no grounds for choice between philosophical ideas, only subjective preferences or varieties of instrumental expediency.)
*
But with the paradox we (somehow) fail to notice we have made this metaphysical assumption and built it into the analysis - hence the paradox.
And it is suddenly obvious how deep an insight it was to understand this paradox, and what trap it is for humans to fail to recognise it.
*
All my life in science, medicine and education I have observed the progressive destruction of these professions by the failure to recognise Zeno's paradox; the failure to recognise that dynamic skills cannot be broken down into static units then rebuilt. They cannot. They cannot.
It does not matter how long you make the forms to be completed, how elaborate the checklists, how comprehensive the managerial oversight.
The problem remains: in making movement static you have frozen the movement - movement is not movement any longer if it has been frozen.
*
Achilles never catches-up with the tortoise.
Because both have been killed.
(To freeze a living entity is to kill it.)
*
What complexity of static summaries does is to make things worse not better - because few, crude and simple static pictures of a complex activity cannot be mistaken for the real thing, whereas humans are bewildered by complexity into assuming it is completeness.
***
*Achilles races the tortoise. He allows that tortoise a 'start' at point A, a little ahead of Achilles. They both begin to run. Achilles runs to the tortoises starting point A; but by this time the tortoise has moved a little ahead from A to point B. Then Achilles runs to point B - but by this time the tortoise has reached point C. So Achilles runs to point C, but by now the tortoise is at point D. And so on. Achilles never catches-up with the tortoise.
I sometimes think the Ancient Greeks did all the philosophy that was worth doing, that needed doing (especially metaphysics); and everything else since has been worse than nothing at all, since it made us lose sight of their insights. All we need to do is retain and re-express.
*
I was aware from mid-teens of Zeno's paradox about Achilles and the Tortoise* (for example as a Tortoise and Rabbit in Tom Stoppard's play Jumpers) - but I never properly got around to understanding just precisely what led to the paradox, why the mode of reasoning was wrong.
I see now this was an oversight and an error.
*
The penny dropped when reading pages 137-9 of The Master and his Emissary, by Iain McGilchrist:
Zeno's paradoxes ... rest on the adoption of the left hemisphere's view that every flowing motion in space or time can be resolved into a series of static moments or points that can then be summed to give back the living whole. The 'seamless' fluidity of motion in space or time is 'reduced' to a series, akin to the series of still frames in a cine film.
*
In essence, the paradox arises from the inbuilt assumption that every dynamic phenomenon can be resolved into a series of static units that can then be summed to recreate the dynamic whole.
There is absolutely no grounds for this assumption - this metaphysical assumption concerning the nature of reality, this basic assumption which frames all further analysis - indeed the assumption is obviously refuted by experience as demonstrated by the paradox.
*
(A further assumption is that metaphysics ought not be contradicted by plain, commonsense experience - since the best Ancient Greek philosophy was meant to enrich normal life and plain commonsense experience - not usurp and replace it. This is a major constraint on philosophizing, and if it is abandoned - as modern culture has abandoned it - then philosophy becomes an open-ended and unbounded activity with no grounds for choice between philosophical ideas, only subjective preferences or varieties of instrumental expediency.)
*
But with the paradox we (somehow) fail to notice we have made this metaphysical assumption and built it into the analysis - hence the paradox.
And it is suddenly obvious how deep an insight it was to understand this paradox, and what trap it is for humans to fail to recognise it.
*
All my life in science, medicine and education I have observed the progressive destruction of these professions by the failure to recognise Zeno's paradox; the failure to recognise that dynamic skills cannot be broken down into static units then rebuilt. They cannot. They cannot.
It does not matter how long you make the forms to be completed, how elaborate the checklists, how comprehensive the managerial oversight.
The problem remains: in making movement static you have frozen the movement - movement is not movement any longer if it has been frozen.
*
Achilles never catches-up with the tortoise.
Because both have been killed.
(To freeze a living entity is to kill it.)
*
What complexity of static summaries does is to make things worse not better - because few, crude and simple static pictures of a complex activity cannot be mistaken for the real thing, whereas humans are bewildered by complexity into assuming it is completeness.
***
*Achilles races the tortoise. He allows that tortoise a 'start' at point A, a little ahead of Achilles. They both begin to run. Achilles runs to the tortoises starting point A; but by this time the tortoise has moved a little ahead from A to point B. Then Achilles runs to point B - but by this time the tortoise has reached point C. So Achilles runs to point C, but by now the tortoise is at point D. And so on. Achilles never catches-up with the tortoise.
I sometimes think the Ancient Greeks did all the philosophy that was worth doing, that needed doing (especially metaphysics); and everything else since has been worse than nothing at all, since it made us lose sight of their insights. All we need to do is retain and re-express.
*
Yes of course - Not a problem
*
Somebody has decided that assistants serving behind the counters of fast food outlets, coffee chains and big stores - will all from now be trained to respond to my request for a bacon sandwich or cappuccino with either: "Yes - of course" - or - "Not a problem!"
*
Well, since I am English and middle class, I am used to adopting a stance of servility towards all retail assistants; but really - I did not expect my polite requests to be taken seriously and for me to be treated as if I was craving a favour when I am ordering something off a retail menu.
*
To be honest, I cannot remember what assistants used to say before they had been inculcated with these catch phrases - perhaps they used to say "Yes Sir"?If so, then clearly that was insufficiently democratic, and had to be replaced. Ahem.
And of course the assistants are only saying what they have been trained to say: but why have they been trained to say it? For whose benefit?
*
I suppose I should be grateful that I am not yet required to enter shops shuffling on my bended knees.
*
Somebody has decided that assistants serving behind the counters of fast food outlets, coffee chains and big stores - will all from now be trained to respond to my request for a bacon sandwich or cappuccino with either: "Yes - of course" - or - "Not a problem!"
*
Well, since I am English and middle class, I am used to adopting a stance of servility towards all retail assistants; but really - I did not expect my polite requests to be taken seriously and for me to be treated as if I was craving a favour when I am ordering something off a retail menu.
*
To be honest, I cannot remember what assistants used to say before they had been inculcated with these catch phrases - perhaps they used to say "Yes Sir"?If so, then clearly that was insufficiently democratic, and had to be replaced. Ahem.
And of course the assistants are only saying what they have been trained to say: but why have they been trained to say it? For whose benefit?
*
I suppose I should be grateful that I am not yet required to enter shops shuffling on my bended knees.
*
Tuesday 3 January 2012
Free will versus the Left brain - a 'fusion' of McGilchrist and Sheldrake?
*
Reading Iain McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary and mixing in some ideas from Rupert Sheldrake, provides me with what seems a very promising way of thinking about that long-standing philosophical chestnut - free will versus determinism.
*
McG makes it clear that the Left hemisphere perceives reality in a deterministic way - as linear sequential chains of discrete causes and effects.
Yet the Left brain also has a problem, an intractable problem, of truly linking cause with effect, since reality is seen as static units resembling a 'snapshot' and it is difficult/ impossible to see how a cause statically-conceived can actually 'cause' anything.
But although the Left hemisphere can perceive that its own perspective is inadequate, it is intrinsically incapable of conceptualising anything else!
It has its precise and partial way of representing reality, and that is all that it can do.
*
Determinism is like that.
If we conceptualise the world in terms of causes and effects, then of course then can be no free will since we have already decided that everything is caused by something else.
On the other hand, this assumption opens up an infinite regress (as Aristotle realised) which can only be terminated by a first cause or unmoved mover. For some reason, modern thinking never acknowledges this infinite regress of causality - just too impatient I guess...
*
To assume that reality is conceptualised in terms of causal chains is and unfounded - it is not something that humanity has discovered.
Rather it is something that modern man cannot help doing.
We know it cannot be the whole truth - yet (we moderns, at least) cannot conceive of any other way of imagining things.
*
Well, McGilchrist points to another way - the Right hemisphere way.
Whereas the Left sees reality as a sequence of snapshots, the Right sees reality as a dynamic whole.
A dynamic whole cannot be expressed in terms of a sequence of snapshots; but how can it be expressed?
*
My notion is to conceive of Right brain function in terms of three-dimensional and dynamic morphic fields to complement the Left brain conceptualised in linear cause and effect sequences of static units.
(In reality, there are both linear sequences and morphic fields on both sides of the brain, considerable overlap - but McG is completely convincing that there is also a qualitative functional distinction, and this can be summarised - the point can be made - by treating the Left as if it were purely linear sequential and the Right as if it were a morphic field.)
This seems helpful to me; the idea of Right brain as a field of activity exerting its effects in a manner analogous to magnetic fields or gravitational fields.
*
Note: by Sheldrake's account a morphic field imposes form, pattern, structure onto the system in it influence - organising disparate events and processes; furthermore the field is teleological, containing 'attractors' which dynamically shape the system towards goals.
*
The Right brain (by this view) is in contact with the environment by being affected by other morphic fields - the gives it the distinctive 'holistic' grasp that the Left brain lacks.
McG conceives the optimal cognitive situation as being when the Right hemisphere dominates, using the Left for specific detailed processing tasks, then the Right taking up the results of Left processing and integrating them into the larger whole.
This could be imagined as the Right brain taking detached linear sequences of the Left brain (like strings of beads) and embedding them into dynamic three dimensional patterns of organisation - so that each causal sequence is put into its proper place and related to other sequences and to the much larger and dominant aspects of form that are not encoded as causal sequences...
*
So, this picture of the brain would have free will as fundamentally a Right brain phenomenon; with free will operating as a field; this picture standing in contrast to free will being more usually (but incoherently) considered in a Left brain fashion, as the first, (somehow) uncaused and initiating step of a chain of causes and effects leading to obervable behaviour.
*
I am suggesting that morphic fields, conceptualised in terms of McG's Right hemisphere functionality, could be considered a mechanism for the operation of free will, an explanation for 'how' it works.
This is, of course, merely a manner of thinking about free will: a new analogy which breaks the tyrannical power of free will conceptualised in terms of Left brain causal chains.
To see free will as a field does not describe what free will actually is, or what makes it free. In a sense the shift from linear to field thinking has only pushed back the explanation by another step - but this pushing back does create the space necessary as a preliminary to recognizing that the exclusion of free will is a metaphysical property of a form of representation, and that the exclusion of free will is not a property of the observed world.
*
Because free will is a metaphysical concept, not a physical concept - free will cannot be discovered by science, but nor can its absence be discovered by science.
There is a very widespread notion that 'science' has discovered that free will is an illusion, never existed, was merely a religious dogma.
This is a mistake - the actual situation is that the assumptions and methods of science have made free will incomprehensible.
Modern people cannot even imagine what is meant by free will - and assume that this means that science has discovered the absence of free will, or discovered that free will is an unnecessary hypothesis.
*
Free will is not a thing which is, or is not, out there in the natural world waiting to be detected - or found absent.
Free will is a metaphysical assumption - just as determinism is a metaphysical assumption.
But determinism is carrying the day in practise, because people cannot understand what kind of a thing free will might be. Public thought can only see reality as chains of cause and effect, and can only assume that every human act of will, every choice, must have had a cause or causes (whether we know them or not) - and therefore every act of will or choice can be explained-away.
People are simply locked into this way of thinking and can see no escape from it.
Perhaps understanding Left and Right brain differences, and thinking of causation in terms of organising fields instead of linear sequences, might open up the recognition that there is no 'must' about determinism.
*
When we feel that reality 'must' be deterministic, we are simply reading-off the distal consequences of our proximate assumptions.
Change the assumptions, and determinism melts.
*
Reading Iain McGilchrist's The Master and his Emissary and mixing in some ideas from Rupert Sheldrake, provides me with what seems a very promising way of thinking about that long-standing philosophical chestnut - free will versus determinism.
*
McG makes it clear that the Left hemisphere perceives reality in a deterministic way - as linear sequential chains of discrete causes and effects.
Yet the Left brain also has a problem, an intractable problem, of truly linking cause with effect, since reality is seen as static units resembling a 'snapshot' and it is difficult/ impossible to see how a cause statically-conceived can actually 'cause' anything.
But although the Left hemisphere can perceive that its own perspective is inadequate, it is intrinsically incapable of conceptualising anything else!
It has its precise and partial way of representing reality, and that is all that it can do.
*
Determinism is like that.
If we conceptualise the world in terms of causes and effects, then of course then can be no free will since we have already decided that everything is caused by something else.
On the other hand, this assumption opens up an infinite regress (as Aristotle realised) which can only be terminated by a first cause or unmoved mover. For some reason, modern thinking never acknowledges this infinite regress of causality - just too impatient I guess...
*
To assume that reality is conceptualised in terms of causal chains is and unfounded - it is not something that humanity has discovered.
Rather it is something that modern man cannot help doing.
We know it cannot be the whole truth - yet (we moderns, at least) cannot conceive of any other way of imagining things.
*
Well, McGilchrist points to another way - the Right hemisphere way.
Whereas the Left sees reality as a sequence of snapshots, the Right sees reality as a dynamic whole.
A dynamic whole cannot be expressed in terms of a sequence of snapshots; but how can it be expressed?
*
My notion is to conceive of Right brain function in terms of three-dimensional and dynamic morphic fields to complement the Left brain conceptualised in linear cause and effect sequences of static units.
(In reality, there are both linear sequences and morphic fields on both sides of the brain, considerable overlap - but McG is completely convincing that there is also a qualitative functional distinction, and this can be summarised - the point can be made - by treating the Left as if it were purely linear sequential and the Right as if it were a morphic field.)
This seems helpful to me; the idea of Right brain as a field of activity exerting its effects in a manner analogous to magnetic fields or gravitational fields.
*
Note: by Sheldrake's account a morphic field imposes form, pattern, structure onto the system in it influence - organising disparate events and processes; furthermore the field is teleological, containing 'attractors' which dynamically shape the system towards goals.
*
The Right brain (by this view) is in contact with the environment by being affected by other morphic fields - the gives it the distinctive 'holistic' grasp that the Left brain lacks.
McG conceives the optimal cognitive situation as being when the Right hemisphere dominates, using the Left for specific detailed processing tasks, then the Right taking up the results of Left processing and integrating them into the larger whole.
This could be imagined as the Right brain taking detached linear sequences of the Left brain (like strings of beads) and embedding them into dynamic three dimensional patterns of organisation - so that each causal sequence is put into its proper place and related to other sequences and to the much larger and dominant aspects of form that are not encoded as causal sequences...
*
So, this picture of the brain would have free will as fundamentally a Right brain phenomenon; with free will operating as a field; this picture standing in contrast to free will being more usually (but incoherently) considered in a Left brain fashion, as the first, (somehow) uncaused and initiating step of a chain of causes and effects leading to obervable behaviour.
*
I am suggesting that morphic fields, conceptualised in terms of McG's Right hemisphere functionality, could be considered a mechanism for the operation of free will, an explanation for 'how' it works.
This is, of course, merely a manner of thinking about free will: a new analogy which breaks the tyrannical power of free will conceptualised in terms of Left brain causal chains.
To see free will as a field does not describe what free will actually is, or what makes it free. In a sense the shift from linear to field thinking has only pushed back the explanation by another step - but this pushing back does create the space necessary as a preliminary to recognizing that the exclusion of free will is a metaphysical property of a form of representation, and that the exclusion of free will is not a property of the observed world.
*
Because free will is a metaphysical concept, not a physical concept - free will cannot be discovered by science, but nor can its absence be discovered by science.
There is a very widespread notion that 'science' has discovered that free will is an illusion, never existed, was merely a religious dogma.
This is a mistake - the actual situation is that the assumptions and methods of science have made free will incomprehensible.
Modern people cannot even imagine what is meant by free will - and assume that this means that science has discovered the absence of free will, or discovered that free will is an unnecessary hypothesis.
*
Free will is not a thing which is, or is not, out there in the natural world waiting to be detected - or found absent.
Free will is a metaphysical assumption - just as determinism is a metaphysical assumption.
But determinism is carrying the day in practise, because people cannot understand what kind of a thing free will might be. Public thought can only see reality as chains of cause and effect, and can only assume that every human act of will, every choice, must have had a cause or causes (whether we know them or not) - and therefore every act of will or choice can be explained-away.
People are simply locked into this way of thinking and can see no escape from it.
Perhaps understanding Left and Right brain differences, and thinking of causation in terms of organising fields instead of linear sequences, might open up the recognition that there is no 'must' about determinism.
*
When we feel that reality 'must' be deterministic, we are simply reading-off the distal consequences of our proximate assumptions.
Change the assumptions, and determinism melts.
*
Monday 2 January 2012
How to corrupt a whole civilization - the ratchet of corruption
*
Simple, but not easy (or not easy at first...).
*
Get people to perform acts they know in their guts to be evil - then make sure they do not repent them.
(To make them sin is not at all difficult, they will all do this anyway, sooner or later - they are, after-all, sinners by nature. It is preventing repentance that is the difficult thing - by nature many will repent, so you must prevent what is natural.)
That is all you have to do - once this simple system is in place, then it will become self-corrupting.
*
To corrupt the world, just ensure that repentance is prevented. Ensure that repentance is portrayed as strictly meaningless, hypocritical, weak, lame, lacking in self-esteem. Just ensure that repentance is seen as blaming, repressive, inegalitarian, racist, sexist.
(Because if you repent an evil then you acknowledge an evil, you implicitly accuse others of an evil - and that is to be judgmental. Thus the ethic transforms, inverts: the only evil is now to repent evil...)
*
Unrepentant sin is a ratchet-process, because once corrupted people stay corrupted.
Instead of repenting acts which they know in their guts to be evil, they boast of them - they encourage others to do the same. Why not?
*
So Screwtape says: Sin - go ahead - do it, if you feel like it - if it makes you happy...
(The precise sin doesn't matter, so long as you disgust yourself.)
Repentance? Nothing to repent. Be proud of your decisions (they are yours - they define you).
(It is those who believe in repentance who are the real sinners.)
Thus spake Screwtape.
*
What is an unrepented sin, after all? - well, the answer is that unrepented sin is fixing one's face away from God. The sin is to turn from God, repentance is a turning back to God. So when there is no repentance you are stuck - living with your back to God.
*
Once a sinner (and it could be just once! - that's the beauty of it) you stay a sinner, and the corrupter can leave you alone to wreck others by your example and teaching, and can apply his attentions elsewhere.
Not tempted by the same old sins? Don't worry, be patient, fashion will provide a supply of novelties to tempt every soul.
*
It's so easy for Screwtape now!
In the old days people were washed clean of their sins and able to make a fresh start, again and again! - the tempter was never sure of his prey until the very end.
But now, you do one measly unrepented sin and the tempter has you!
The sin cannot be repented, cannot be forgiven (who is there to forgive it? Only a god can forgive sin, and we know that they don't exist...) and the only recourse is to deny the sin; and if you deny the sin then you promote the sin.
*
The ratchet of corruption is exponential - just a few proud souls at first.
But each unrepentant sinner permanently joins the ranks of the death eaters, and by example or argument brings another one or two out of the fold.
The growth is exponential.
And pretty soon there is a democratic majority to enforce sin - which cannot be repented.
Such a simple system - so very effective...
*
Simple, but not easy (or not easy at first...).
*
Get people to perform acts they know in their guts to be evil - then make sure they do not repent them.
(To make them sin is not at all difficult, they will all do this anyway, sooner or later - they are, after-all, sinners by nature. It is preventing repentance that is the difficult thing - by nature many will repent, so you must prevent what is natural.)
That is all you have to do - once this simple system is in place, then it will become self-corrupting.
*
To corrupt the world, just ensure that repentance is prevented. Ensure that repentance is portrayed as strictly meaningless, hypocritical, weak, lame, lacking in self-esteem. Just ensure that repentance is seen as blaming, repressive, inegalitarian, racist, sexist.
(Because if you repent an evil then you acknowledge an evil, you implicitly accuse others of an evil - and that is to be judgmental. Thus the ethic transforms, inverts: the only evil is now to repent evil...)
*
Unrepentant sin is a ratchet-process, because once corrupted people stay corrupted.
Instead of repenting acts which they know in their guts to be evil, they boast of them - they encourage others to do the same. Why not?
*
So Screwtape says: Sin - go ahead - do it, if you feel like it - if it makes you happy...
(The precise sin doesn't matter, so long as you disgust yourself.)
Repentance? Nothing to repent. Be proud of your decisions (they are yours - they define you).
(It is those who believe in repentance who are the real sinners.)
Thus spake Screwtape.
*
What is an unrepented sin, after all? - well, the answer is that unrepented sin is fixing one's face away from God. The sin is to turn from God, repentance is a turning back to God. So when there is no repentance you are stuck - living with your back to God.
*
Once a sinner (and it could be just once! - that's the beauty of it) you stay a sinner, and the corrupter can leave you alone to wreck others by your example and teaching, and can apply his attentions elsewhere.
Not tempted by the same old sins? Don't worry, be patient, fashion will provide a supply of novelties to tempt every soul.
*
It's so easy for Screwtape now!
In the old days people were washed clean of their sins and able to make a fresh start, again and again! - the tempter was never sure of his prey until the very end.
But now, you do one measly unrepented sin and the tempter has you!
The sin cannot be repented, cannot be forgiven (who is there to forgive it? Only a god can forgive sin, and we know that they don't exist...) and the only recourse is to deny the sin; and if you deny the sin then you promote the sin.
*
The ratchet of corruption is exponential - just a few proud souls at first.
But each unrepentant sinner permanently joins the ranks of the death eaters, and by example or argument brings another one or two out of the fold.
The growth is exponential.
And pretty soon there is a democratic majority to enforce sin - which cannot be repented.
Such a simple system - so very effective...
*
Sunday 1 January 2012
The Archbish of C speaks to the nation: spot the Christian Reference
*
This person is the leader of my church giving his annual address to the nation.
It is essentially a stagnant heap of Leftist, evasive, multi-culti, politically correct propaganda - but don't miss the Christian reference...
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2312/archbishops-bbc-new-year-message
..it comes, briefly, about three and a half minutes into a four and a half minute video.
*
Otherwise, what can one say about this?
What words describe it?
Banal, trite, obscure, wrong whenever it is not platitudinous, missing the point - but then what is the point supposed to be?
I can only guess he is setting up a straw man of Britain's supposed hostility to 'young people' and then proposing some vague and ineffectual secular ways this can be tackled.
But why? Why did he do this? What does he think he is doing? Has he any conception of how clownish and unprincipled he appears - how c & u he actually is?
*
The Church of England evangelical protestant church I support has a tremendous range of exciting and amusing activities for children (including my kids); these activities also have an obvious and unashamed evangelical and Christian educational element to them. It 'works', and consequently this is one of the ten biggest Anglican Churches in England (measured by the size of the regular congregation). Yet of course, this church is at the opposite pole from the Archbish of C and seriously at loggerheads with the liberal Anglican hierarchy.
*
This person is the leader of my church giving his annual address to the nation.
It is essentially a stagnant heap of Leftist, evasive, multi-culti, politically correct propaganda - but don't miss the Christian reference...
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2312/archbishops-bbc-new-year-message
..it comes, briefly, about three and a half minutes into a four and a half minute video.
*
Otherwise, what can one say about this?
What words describe it?
Banal, trite, obscure, wrong whenever it is not platitudinous, missing the point - but then what is the point supposed to be?
I can only guess he is setting up a straw man of Britain's supposed hostility to 'young people' and then proposing some vague and ineffectual secular ways this can be tackled.
But why? Why did he do this? What does he think he is doing? Has he any conception of how clownish and unprincipled he appears - how c & u he actually is?
*
The Church of England evangelical protestant church I support has a tremendous range of exciting and amusing activities for children (including my kids); these activities also have an obvious and unashamed evangelical and Christian educational element to them. It 'works', and consequently this is one of the ten biggest Anglican Churches in England (measured by the size of the regular congregation). Yet of course, this church is at the opposite pole from the Archbish of C and seriously at loggerheads with the liberal Anglican hierarchy.
*
Hitler and Smoking
*
I just stumbled across this article I wrote in the days when I was a highly prolific writer, and writing for major newspapers. I had completely forgotten its existence or that I had written it. Now it seems to be featured on a pro-tobacco collection of articles.
Written from a libertarian stance. Still, it makes a good point, I think...
http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2050154078-4116.html?zoom=750
*
Oh no - not another New Year!
*
It's that disconcerting time of year when we are assailed by bright and friendly faces delightedly wishing us a Happy New Year - an orgy of public celebration over unwrapping the latest wall calendar.
*
It is not a new year in any meaningful sense, nothing new actually starts on January 1; it is not astronomically significant, it is not part of the Christian Year nor any other religion, it is not the tax year, it is not the academic year...
The New Year is the perfect celebration for a modern world which believes in nothing - literally. In the sense that nothing is precisely what it believes in and celebrates most uninhibitedly.
*
Marvelous. Great excitement, all night 'partying' and extreme drunkenness in honour of utter vacuousness: who could possibly be offended by that!
Happy New Nihilism!
*
It's that disconcerting time of year when we are assailed by bright and friendly faces delightedly wishing us a Happy New Year - an orgy of public celebration over unwrapping the latest wall calendar.
*
It is not a new year in any meaningful sense, nothing new actually starts on January 1; it is not astronomically significant, it is not part of the Christian Year nor any other religion, it is not the tax year, it is not the academic year...
The New Year is the perfect celebration for a modern world which believes in nothing - literally. In the sense that nothing is precisely what it believes in and celebrates most uninhibitedly.
*
Marvelous. Great excitement, all night 'partying' and extreme drunkenness in honour of utter vacuousness: who could possibly be offended by that!
Happy New Nihilism!
*
Saturday 31 December 2011
Good habits and civilization - especially prayer
*
A devout life is not much about the flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will.
Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for 'entertainment'.
Against this we can inculcate Good habits - such as frequent participation in Holy Communion, reading of Scripture and devotional books (spiritual 'injections' as Fr Seraphim Rose called them), and most of all a habit of prayer.
I think that the use of one or a few repeated short prayers is especially valuable in modern conditions.
This practice is especially associated with Orthodox mysticism, and has a remarkable 'track record'; but it need not be Orthodox nor mystical.
The prayer chosen was traditionally drawn from scripture - the New Testament or Psalms or Prophecies. Or there is the Jesus Prayer - which has various versions.
The prayer is repeated and repeated whenever the need for prayer is remembered. There is no delay in finding a 'suitable' place or adopting a posture; as soon as the need is remembered the prayer is said (either quietly with the lips or in the mind).
Repetitions can be counted-off on the fingers - or with a device such as a prayer rope or rosary (maybe concealed in the pocket).
As the habit develops it will be found that sometimes the prayer comes to mind or is already running through the mind or being said unconsciously and without intention, and this is itself a reminder to pray consciously and with attention now.
The prayer can function as an alarm call; whenever we surface from the maelstrom of the modern world there is the prayer, ticking away, and reminding us of the real things.
A good habit to acquire!
*
A devout life is not much about the flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will.
Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for 'entertainment'.
Against this we can inculcate Good habits - such as frequent participation in Holy Communion, reading of Scripture and devotional books (spiritual 'injections' as Fr Seraphim Rose called them), and most of all a habit of prayer.
I think that the use of one or a few repeated short prayers is especially valuable in modern conditions.
This practice is especially associated with Orthodox mysticism, and has a remarkable 'track record'; but it need not be Orthodox nor mystical.
The prayer chosen was traditionally drawn from scripture - the New Testament or Psalms or Prophecies. Or there is the Jesus Prayer - which has various versions.
The prayer is repeated and repeated whenever the need for prayer is remembered. There is no delay in finding a 'suitable' place or adopting a posture; as soon as the need is remembered the prayer is said (either quietly with the lips or in the mind).
Repetitions can be counted-off on the fingers - or with a device such as a prayer rope or rosary (maybe concealed in the pocket).
As the habit develops it will be found that sometimes the prayer comes to mind or is already running through the mind or being said unconsciously and without intention, and this is itself a reminder to pray consciously and with attention now.
The prayer can function as an alarm call; whenever we surface from the maelstrom of the modern world there is the prayer, ticking away, and reminding us of the real things.
A good habit to acquire!
*
Friday 30 December 2011
Guard yourself against the world?
*
Archbishop Averky also quoted often the words of St. Ignatius Brianchininov:
"Do not dare to raise your weak hand to stop the elemental tide of apostasy. Avoid it, protect yourself from it, and that is enough for you. Get to know the spirit of the times, study it so you can avoid its influence whenever possible."
Cited in http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-man-in-face-of-apostasy.html
From its provenance, this must be taken as authoritative - assuming we can interpret it correctly.
*
The interesting thing is that the Saint's advice is the opposite from normal worldly advice which I used to follow. The worldly advice was that one had a kind of duty to expose oneself to the worst that the world could throw at you, otherwise you were shirking life, living in an ivory tower - otherwise you didn't truly know life.
The truly virtuous man could, and would, live among the seamiest characters and grossest experiences (whether actual or vicarious in art and the media) - and only by doing so would his virtue be proven.
Such was the worldly advice which I followed...
*
The worldly advisers knew what they were about, knew that if exposed to unrelieved and engineered temptation and horror 24/7 - then all but the most saintly would succomb to sin and despair; and that if everyone was exposed to incessant temptation and horror from an early age so that they never got clear of it, then there would be no saints.
*
H/T commenter Pierre.
*
Archbishop Averky also quoted often the words of St. Ignatius Brianchininov:
"Do not dare to raise your weak hand to stop the elemental tide of apostasy. Avoid it, protect yourself from it, and that is enough for you. Get to know the spirit of the times, study it so you can avoid its influence whenever possible."
Cited in http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/02/one-man-in-face-of-apostasy.html
From its provenance, this must be taken as authoritative - assuming we can interpret it correctly.
*
The interesting thing is that the Saint's advice is the opposite from normal worldly advice which I used to follow. The worldly advice was that one had a kind of duty to expose oneself to the worst that the world could throw at you, otherwise you were shirking life, living in an ivory tower - otherwise you didn't truly know life.
The truly virtuous man could, and would, live among the seamiest characters and grossest experiences (whether actual or vicarious in art and the media) - and only by doing so would his virtue be proven.
Such was the worldly advice which I followed...
*
The worldly advisers knew what they were about, knew that if exposed to unrelieved and engineered temptation and horror 24/7 - then all but the most saintly would succomb to sin and despair; and that if everyone was exposed to incessant temptation and horror from an early age so that they never got clear of it, then there would be no saints.
*
H/T commenter Pierre.
*
The profound evil of non-judgment
*
Political Correctness says: Don't judge - don't be prejudiced.
Christianity says: Judge everything, superficial or deep - because everything is tending either to the good or to the bad.
Christianity says: Be prejudiced about everything - because your attitude to good and bad things must be different.
*
Only, be prepared to revise your judgements or prejudices in light of further developments. You must judge and be prejudiced, but as a fallen Man these will err.
Only God knows justice and the truth - but we must judge as best we can, guess the nature of things as best we can - grow to be like God as best we can.
*
Political Correctness says: Don't judge - don't be prejudiced.
Christianity says: Judge everything, superficial or deep - because everything is tending either to the good or to the bad.
Christianity says: Be prejudiced about everything - because your attitude to good and bad things must be different.
*
Only, be prepared to revise your judgements or prejudices in light of further developments. You must judge and be prejudiced, but as a fallen Man these will err.
Only God knows justice and the truth - but we must judge as best we can, guess the nature of things as best we can - grow to be like God as best we can.
*
Thursday 29 December 2011
Six problems for modern Christian apologists - and a solution?
*
Historical Christianity came into an already religious world and won converts from Jews and then pagans - the modern situation of converting secular, materialist, utilitarian hedonists is very different:
*
1. Paganism absent
Christianity is a much bigger jump from secular modernity than from paganism. Christianity seemed like a completion of paganism - a step or two further in the same direction and building on what was already there: souls and their survival beyond death, the intrinsic nature of sin, the activities of invisible powers and so on. With moderns there is nothing to build on (except perhaps childhood memories or alternative realities glimpsed through art and literature).
*
2. Incomplete
Modern Christianity as experienced by converts tends to be incomplete - precisely because modern Christianity has nothing to build on. This means that modern incomplete Christianity lacks explanatory power, seems to have little or nothing to say about what seem to be the main problems of living. For example, modern Christianity seems to have nothing to do with politics, law, art, philosophy or science; to inhabit a tiny, shrinking realm cut-off from daily concerns. Modern Christianity often deletes miracles; original sin; the virgin birth, the incarnation and dual nature of Christ; Christ's death, resurrection and atonement; the Holy Trinity; angels, demons and unseen spiritual warfare and so on - yet without these and other elements, Christianity does not really hang-together nor does it satisfy human yearning.
*
3. Shallowness.
Modern Christianity often feels shallow - it seems to rely on diktat of scripture and the Church - this is because moderns lack a basis in the spontaneous perceptions of Natural Law, animism, the sense of active supernatural power in everyday life. Modern Christianity (after the first flush of the conversion experience) thus feels dry, abstract, legalistic, prohibitive, uninvolving, lacking in purpose.
*
4. Judaism absent.
Modern Christianity has to do without the centuries of Jewish tradition developing an understanding of the nature of God, the prophets and their prophecies, the devotional life of the Psalms etc; but modern Christians have to discover all this from scratch and for themselves, and often do not.
*
5. Confusion.
Modern life is hedonic, distracted - often drugged. Consequently people are often unclear about the nature of life. On top of this, in recent decades the prevalent ruling culture has been actively against the Good. Modern art is anti-beauty, modern philosophies are anti-truth, modern morality is an inversion of Natural Law. Propaganda (implicit and explicit) inculcates that the spontaneous ideals of humans (native religion, sex differentials, family, nation, loyalty, courage) are wrong. In sum moderns are deeply (deliberately) confused about deep matters. Therefore, modern Christian apologists have to explain the human condition, the basic nature of life; before explaining how Christianity is the answer.
*
6. Anti-Christian inoculation
6. Anti-Christian inoculation
The ruling culture now inoculates specifically against Christianity and the prerequisites of Christianity. It supplies ready-made arguments grounded in modern materialist hedonism to be used against all evidence or steps in argument that might lead to Christianity if rigorously followed. Christian apologetics cannot advance one step without eliciting these slogans, and modern impatience, distractability and a short attention span does the rest. That these hedonic materialist arguments are circular, incoherent and ungrounded is irrelevant in practice; because they effectively block the development of an alternative metaphysics from which their invalidity would be apparent.
*
In sum - modern Christianity lacks both pull and push - it lacks the pull which comes from people being grounded in Paganism and Judaism; and it lacks the push of being a complex and complete explanation of the human condition, relations, meanings and purposes. If apologists both know and also attempt to supply all of this, to supply the depth and completeness of Christianity, they find they cannot do so all at once. If they try to be exact and comprehensive, the apologist comes-up against the modern inability to follow a long and complex line of argument; yet if he tries to present Christianity all at once then what can be communicated is inevitably a gross simplification: incomplete and shallow.
*
So what is the answer? If the fullness is too complex and the essence is incomplete?
And since people cannot become like pagans or ancient Jews - from where could they start?
Perhaps as children again, children re-awoken and reborn in us; since children have spontaneously the prerequisites which our culture fails to provide and has suppressed:
Mark 10.13-16
And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
*
How strange that children should be our repositories of ancient wisdom - and childhood memories the basis of salvation; but there it is, explicitly - Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein....
*
Wednesday 28 December 2011
Deliberate self-mutilation is an evil
*
If someone was to spray-paint Durham Cathedral with graffiti, or slash all the best paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, or blast a Vuvuzela during the climax of a great operatic performance - we would (or, at least ought to) recognize these as evil acts in their varying degrees; as destructive the Good.
We should not be distracted because deliberately wrecking Great Art, deliberately marring beauty, is somehow 'not as bad' as torturing or killing - wrecking Great Art is bad: that is the point.
*
The same applies to the human face and body - deliberately to mutilate the human face and body is bad, is destructive of Good, is evil.
It is an act of desecration - a vandalism of sanctity.
And this is an objective fact - not a matter of opinion.
*
(As we all covertly recognize: our very viscera inform us of the fact.)
*
Even worse when the mutilation is permanent, scarring, cannot be undone.
Even worse when the mutilation is proudly advertized - so that others may be exposed to the act of evil; challenged to accept it, encouraged to emulate it.
*
Even worse when mutilation is normalized - brought into desirable situations in art, TV, movies, drama, news - into cultural institutions; into situations where the mutilation is accepted - perhaps after a struggle, or in face of ignorant hostility and prejudice - or simply made part of the background, assimilated unconsciously.
This is propaganda for evil - and far worse than oneself sinning (sin is inevitable in fallen Men; but the propagation - by favorable association, advertisement, by normalization - of sin is a voluntary act of strategic evil).
*
Evil cannot be undone, but it can be repented.
However, only at the cost of Pride.
Advertizing, normalizing, boasting of sin is a highly regarded activity in the modern world - by contrast it is regarded as evil to point-out sin, to reject sin, to say that a sin is bad and should elicit shame rather than admiration - because to do so is hurtful - humiliating, even.
But repenting evil hurts, it ought to hurt - it reduces one's self-esteem and status among others to say 'I made a mistake, I did a bad thing'.
But that is what ought to be done.
*
If someone was to spray-paint Durham Cathedral with graffiti, or slash all the best paintings in the National Portrait Gallery, or blast a Vuvuzela during the climax of a great operatic performance - we would (or, at least ought to) recognize these as evil acts in their varying degrees; as destructive the Good.
We should not be distracted because deliberately wrecking Great Art, deliberately marring beauty, is somehow 'not as bad' as torturing or killing - wrecking Great Art is bad: that is the point.
*
The same applies to the human face and body - deliberately to mutilate the human face and body is bad, is destructive of Good, is evil.
It is an act of desecration - a vandalism of sanctity.
And this is an objective fact - not a matter of opinion.
*
(As we all covertly recognize: our very viscera inform us of the fact.)
*
Even worse when the mutilation is permanent, scarring, cannot be undone.
Even worse when the mutilation is proudly advertized - so that others may be exposed to the act of evil; challenged to accept it, encouraged to emulate it.
*
Even worse when mutilation is normalized - brought into desirable situations in art, TV, movies, drama, news - into cultural institutions; into situations where the mutilation is accepted - perhaps after a struggle, or in face of ignorant hostility and prejudice - or simply made part of the background, assimilated unconsciously.
This is propaganda for evil - and far worse than oneself sinning (sin is inevitable in fallen Men; but the propagation - by favorable association, advertisement, by normalization - of sin is a voluntary act of strategic evil).
*
Evil cannot be undone, but it can be repented.
However, only at the cost of Pride.
Advertizing, normalizing, boasting of sin is a highly regarded activity in the modern world - by contrast it is regarded as evil to point-out sin, to reject sin, to say that a sin is bad and should elicit shame rather than admiration - because to do so is hurtful - humiliating, even.
But repenting evil hurts, it ought to hurt - it reduces one's self-esteem and status among others to say 'I made a mistake, I did a bad thing'.
But that is what ought to be done.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)