*
Kelham Hall was the home of the Society of the Sacred Mission - a Church of England monastic order which was founded by Fr Herbert (HH) Kelly in 1894.
SSM grew to become one of the biggest and most important of the men's religious societies in the C of E, and provider of perhaps the best theological education that the church has ever known.
All this before a catastrophic collapse of demand through the 1960s and the closure of Kelham Hall in the early 1970s.
(A small and scattered residue of professed members of SSM still remains.)
*
I have been reading SSM: history of the Society of Sacred Mission by Alistair Mason (1993) - I will abbreviate this as SSM-Mason - which I found to be a superb book.
One of its revelations was the detailed account of Kelham's course in theology, which it provided to young men aiming-at ordination; who lived under annual monastic vows in a residential and immersive environment.
The quality of the Kelham education in theology was remarkable.
*
The Kelham course was better devised, and covered more, than any other course available. Also the students thought harder than ordinary students elsewhere. SSM-Mason, p89
...the long SSM course... was a great achievement. Very ordinary students did more and better theology there than at any other institution in the history of Anglicanism. SSM-Mason p93.
*
What were their methods at Kelham Hall?
1. In the first place, the course was designed as a free education for a skilled working class intake - the children of artisans who had not been to Public (i.e. private) schools, and had not attended universities - the boys usually began in their mid-teens, and as young as 15. The course therefore included (but was not restricted to) relatively elementary academic teaching (e.g. teaching from scratch, from zero knowledge, Latin and Greek).
2. But within this group Kelham was very selective; accepting only a small fraction of applicants and expelling about half of those they did accept (for bad behaviour, or for academic failures).
3. The course was long - six or seven years. This meant that the students had plenty of time to master difficult content and to go through a very large and high level curriculum thoroughly and without haste - and yet with plenty of time for many and frequent daily hours of attendance at religious services, for household chores, and organized sports. Every hour of every day was organized, pretty much.
4. The method of teaching seems to have been, on weekdays, as follows:
- An hour per day of classroom training, e.g. in Latin and Greek.
- An hour lecture per day - especially systemtic theology/ dogmatics and the complete history of the Christian Church. These lectures were reproduced in typescripts and collected into booklets.
- Five hours per day of book work to read-up the subjects of the day's lecture and to prepare...
- One essay per week, which was read and marked by staff.
*
My conclusion is that excellent academic results at an advanced level are possible with students of only moderate natural ability and with very little background, cheaply and with few facilities; but that this requires what seems nowadays a very tough - almost 'military' - regime, and that most students be considerably younger than is normal at present.
*
Friday 13 April 2012
I am being tortured by street musicians
*
All of whom play looped-versions of what is supposed to be the first sixteen bars of the 'Romanian' Anniversary Song...
*
(You know the tune if not the name.
It is beautifully sung here by the genius tenor Andy Williams
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekduN2N0eTY )
*
...except that these versions are played by one finger on an accordeon, 'un-barred' in tempo, and have variable numbers of notes before repeating, and repeating, and repeating...
A particularly pernicious form of noise pollution.
*
All of whom play looped-versions of what is supposed to be the first sixteen bars of the 'Romanian' Anniversary Song...
*
(You know the tune if not the name.
It is beautifully sung here by the genius tenor Andy Williams
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekduN2N0eTY )
*
...except that these versions are played by one finger on an accordeon, 'un-barred' in tempo, and have variable numbers of notes before repeating, and repeating, and repeating...
A particularly pernicious form of noise pollution.
*
Diseases are caused by the kinds of thing that cause disease
*
There are lots of common diseases for which the cause is not known - coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, most cancers.
When a disease cause is unknown, then all kinds of weird ideas may become established as to the cause, and some of these are tenacious.
Many people imagine that myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) are caused by cholesterol, or fat - but these are not the kind of things that cause disease.
Many people imagine that 'depression' is caused by neurotransmitter abnormalities - such as low serotonin - but this is not a cause of disease, at most (if true, which it isn't) it would be a biochemical marker of disease and not a cause.
*
Diseases are typically quite simple and (at least since about 1900) quite common-sensical, once their causes are discovered.
Most diseases of which causes are known with confidence are caused by infections and parasites, and by various kinds of trauma - physical trauma, chemical trauma (poisoning), by accidents in development (it almost impossible to construct a human being perfectly and without defects), and by the accumulation of damage (this includes most cancers - the cancers of older age).
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/what-kind-of-pathology-causes.html
'Genetic' causes of disease are simply a member of the class of developmental problems - an example of how difficult (impossible) it is to build something as complex as a human without some errors.
*
So, for example, it is likely that the mid-twentieth century epidemic of heart disease was probably caused by some infectious agent - not known; at least, the broad facts fit those of an infectious disease, and as a basic assumption, infection is the most likely cause.
For humans, as large complex animals, invasion and colonisation by infectious parasitic agents is the basic problem in life, considering that we could not, until recently - and even now only very partially - do anything much about the way we are made, or the accumulation of damage.
As well as the damage of micro-organisms and parasites, there are problems with the body's 'immune' reactions to these invaders - and these probably cause another whole set of 'autoimmune' diseases; which may include eczema, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other diseases that are improved by 'steroids' (glucocorticoids).
*
So we have the two greatest drug class discoveries in medicine in the mid-twentieth century: 1. the antibiotics, which can cure infections; and 2. steroids, which can cure pathological immune responses, i.e. pathologies in the bodies own response to infection.
*
What about diet?
In this broad brush approach, the most obvious factor is that humans are harmed by insufficient food: starvation is a major cause of disease throughout human history, probably the major cause in many societies with dense populations.
It seems that humans can live a full lifespan on a huge range of diets, so long as the food does not contain too much poisonous or infectious stuff.
The most striking thing about diet is how little dietary components matter to life expectancy, so long as there is enough food.
*
Tobacco smoke is, of course, a toxic agent - or rather, an agent including toxic properties - and the cause of most lung cancers; and also toxic are many other drugs including alcohol and prescribed drugs.
Many drugs - such as penicillin, digitalis, caffeine, opium - are indeed plant toxins evolved to poison animals who eat the plant.
Plant seeds, stems and leaves are usually poisonous to animals unless they are protected by a physical barrier (such as shell, bark, tough 'skin'); because stems and especially leaves are exposed, and the plant doesn't want its reproductive cells to be eaten. e.g. Tobacco is from leaves, caffeine from seeds, and so on.
*
So, there we have it. The causes of disease. If in doubt, assume one of the above.
*
There are lots of common diseases for which the cause is not known - coronary heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, most cancers.
When a disease cause is unknown, then all kinds of weird ideas may become established as to the cause, and some of these are tenacious.
Many people imagine that myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) are caused by cholesterol, or fat - but these are not the kind of things that cause disease.
Many people imagine that 'depression' is caused by neurotransmitter abnormalities - such as low serotonin - but this is not a cause of disease, at most (if true, which it isn't) it would be a biochemical marker of disease and not a cause.
*
Diseases are typically quite simple and (at least since about 1900) quite common-sensical, once their causes are discovered.
Most diseases of which causes are known with confidence are caused by infections and parasites, and by various kinds of trauma - physical trauma, chemical trauma (poisoning), by accidents in development (it almost impossible to construct a human being perfectly and without defects), and by the accumulation of damage (this includes most cancers - the cancers of older age).
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/what-kind-of-pathology-causes.html
'Genetic' causes of disease are simply a member of the class of developmental problems - an example of how difficult (impossible) it is to build something as complex as a human without some errors.
*
So, for example, it is likely that the mid-twentieth century epidemic of heart disease was probably caused by some infectious agent - not known; at least, the broad facts fit those of an infectious disease, and as a basic assumption, infection is the most likely cause.
For humans, as large complex animals, invasion and colonisation by infectious parasitic agents is the basic problem in life, considering that we could not, until recently - and even now only very partially - do anything much about the way we are made, or the accumulation of damage.
As well as the damage of micro-organisms and parasites, there are problems with the body's 'immune' reactions to these invaders - and these probably cause another whole set of 'autoimmune' diseases; which may include eczema, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis and many of the other diseases that are improved by 'steroids' (glucocorticoids).
*
So we have the two greatest drug class discoveries in medicine in the mid-twentieth century: 1. the antibiotics, which can cure infections; and 2. steroids, which can cure pathological immune responses, i.e. pathologies in the bodies own response to infection.
*
What about diet?
In this broad brush approach, the most obvious factor is that humans are harmed by insufficient food: starvation is a major cause of disease throughout human history, probably the major cause in many societies with dense populations.
It seems that humans can live a full lifespan on a huge range of diets, so long as the food does not contain too much poisonous or infectious stuff.
The most striking thing about diet is how little dietary components matter to life expectancy, so long as there is enough food.
*
Tobacco smoke is, of course, a toxic agent - or rather, an agent including toxic properties - and the cause of most lung cancers; and also toxic are many other drugs including alcohol and prescribed drugs.
Many drugs - such as penicillin, digitalis, caffeine, opium - are indeed plant toxins evolved to poison animals who eat the plant.
Plant seeds, stems and leaves are usually poisonous to animals unless they are protected by a physical barrier (such as shell, bark, tough 'skin'); because stems and especially leaves are exposed, and the plant doesn't want its reproductive cells to be eaten. e.g. Tobacco is from leaves, caffeine from seeds, and so on.
*
So, there we have it. The causes of disease. If in doubt, assume one of the above.
*
Thursday 12 April 2012
If it is so easy to become a Christian, why is it so hard to stay a Christian?
*
Why is it so hard?
We would expect it to be hard to remain a Christian due to original sin - due to the selfish pridefulness of humans. Yet the business seems even harder than that.
It seems that events conspire to turn us away from God.
*
And that is the answer: events do conspire, there is personal purposive evil in the universe.
Belief in the reality of fallen angels, the devil and demons - personal and purposive evil - is a necessary part of Christianity - and is indeed an aspect of natural law (i.e. the innate and spontaneous human understanding of reality).
If we omit this belief - and the temptations to ignore, deny or delete the devil from theology have never been stronger - then we do not sufficiently understand the world, we underestimate the difficulties of life, of salvation.
*
And this matters, it matters a great deal. The original sin of humans can, of course, be stretched to explain evil; but will probably prove inadequate to explain evil adequately for us to navigate life to salvation.
Especially in the world as it is now where so much conspires to turn us away from God.
*
(This is sin, to be turned away from God, and towards the world and ourselves. Sin is not like breaking the law, it is about this orientation. Christ was free from sin not because he didn't break any religious laws, but because he was always turned towards his Father and resisted all attempts to turn him away.)
*
To live in a world of endemic, pervasive, expanding sin - and yet not to acknowledge the reality of, and guard against the activities of, personal, purposive evil is not sophisticated nor is it a higher form of Christianity - it is to deny clear and explicit Christian teaching, and passively to aid the plans of the enemy.
*
Why is it so hard?
We would expect it to be hard to remain a Christian due to original sin - due to the selfish pridefulness of humans. Yet the business seems even harder than that.
It seems that events conspire to turn us away from God.
*
And that is the answer: events do conspire, there is personal purposive evil in the universe.
Belief in the reality of fallen angels, the devil and demons - personal and purposive evil - is a necessary part of Christianity - and is indeed an aspect of natural law (i.e. the innate and spontaneous human understanding of reality).
If we omit this belief - and the temptations to ignore, deny or delete the devil from theology have never been stronger - then we do not sufficiently understand the world, we underestimate the difficulties of life, of salvation.
*
And this matters, it matters a great deal. The original sin of humans can, of course, be stretched to explain evil; but will probably prove inadequate to explain evil adequately for us to navigate life to salvation.
Especially in the world as it is now where so much conspires to turn us away from God.
*
(This is sin, to be turned away from God, and towards the world and ourselves. Sin is not like breaking the law, it is about this orientation. Christ was free from sin not because he didn't break any religious laws, but because he was always turned towards his Father and resisted all attempts to turn him away.)
*
To live in a world of endemic, pervasive, expanding sin - and yet not to acknowledge the reality of, and guard against the activities of, personal, purposive evil is not sophisticated nor is it a higher form of Christianity - it is to deny clear and explicit Christian teaching, and passively to aid the plans of the enemy.
*
Wednesday 11 April 2012
Magical thinking in secular modernity
*
As I well remember from my own experience, moderns and progressives like to imagine that they are hard-nosed, rational, empirical. Yet magical thinking abounds.
It is abetted by the abstractions which underpin public discourse.
Clever people like to imagine that they are comfortable and competent in the world of abstractions; yet in my experience they are merely complacent and confused.
*
Think of 'education'. People talk a lot about the effect of education. The effect, for example, of attending college upon earnings. They gather data, study correlations...
And at the end of the day they claim that being signed up for a place called a university for three or four years enhances earnings.
The magic comes because these people really ignore, yes they do, whether the person attends college (as contrasted with working in a bar and going to parties), whether they study anything valuable - they ignore whether the place called a university is even trying to educate students and if so then in what?
Indeed, we get a situation when people really do simply sign onto the books of a college, and where the college simply lays on some random cluster of modules which they claim are academically relevant - and play around with experiments in 'delivering' these modules... and everybody imagines that somehow, something (which we can't define) called education must be going on; and everybody is terribly surprised, offended or angry when the people who have been through this 'process' seem not only to have gained nothing by it but are made worse in their general habits and exhibit a decline in useful skills.
*
Since there is no modern definition of education, the concept - the word - serves as a black box to obscure that 1. we do not know what is going-on - if anything - in modern schools and colleges, nor do we know whether it is good or bad. 2. we do not care what is going on. 3. Nonetheless we assume that something terribly important is going on - important enough that we sacrifice vastly to make sure that ever-more of it goes on for ever-more people.
Education is is a bogus discourse about abstract masses; but what could potentially be understood is at the level of individuals and their experience - their culture, skills, habits.
From that perspective it is clear than many, most, indeed the majority of individuals deteriorate in college, are damaged and corrupted by college.
From that perspective (of teachers in classrooms) it is clear that most of the official stuff that goes on in college, sometimes all of the stuff that goes on in college, is not even trying to do anything in particular at all.
*
Or 'immigration'.
This is a subject treated in a wholly magical and wishful manner.
Immigration is about getting new neighbours.
Now, is there anybody who imagines that it does not make any difference who your neighbours happen to be?
Is there anybody who would be indifferent if the new neighbour was someone who had been a gangster, torturer, professional thief. Would we expect a change of location to change them into someone indistinguishable from ourselves?
Is there anybody who would be indifferent to whether there was one new neighbour arriving, or ten or one hundred new neighbours? At some point - imprecise but definite - people cease to be new neighbours and become displacers.
Is there anyone who would be indifferent to whether the new neighbours took nothing - or whether the new neighbours in effect extracted money from your wallet to keep them in comfort (perhaps greater than your own), and to build new houses and schools (perhaps better than your own).
Yet the word, the concept, of immigration ignores these specifics - such that the abstracting intellectuals are astonished and revolted by the selfishness of anyone who tries to re-introduce reality.
Immigration is not just an abstraction, it is a compulsory abstraction - which cannot be allowed to be broken-down into specific elements. Experience and personal knowledge can be allowed to have no relevance to the concept of immigration.
In reality, it would (almost) be accurate to state that there is no such thing as 'immigration' - immigration as such is neither good nor bad - the reality is that it is (almost) entirely a matter of the characteristics (character and abilities as revealed by behaviour) of the people that are immigrating and the quantities.
The concept of immigration therefore serves almost entirely to obscure reality; and the obscuration is mandatory.
*
'Economics'.
What the heck is economics, and how on earth have we come to a situation where people seriously believe that when you are in debt, the way out of debt is to borrow more and spend more?
It is obvious that the multiple layers of abstraction of economics, the treatment of complex matters in gross aggregation, combined with the vast size and inertia and specialised interdependency of modernity - that economics has become psychotic, operating in a world of fantasy; a folie a thousands of crazed colleagues.
Economics not only assumes, but it necessarily assumes that all human beings are the same - are interchangeable units.
It assumes, for example, that differences in skills are due to education. So that the way to create more skills is to have a more educated work force. If there are more people spending three or four years at a place called a college and at the end emerging with a piece of paper called a degree - then that means more skills. If there are more people called doctors, that means more skills.
But education, as we see above, is a black box - so economists have said nothing: worse, they have corrupted discourse such that the assumption is now that certificated 'skill' is an actual skill, that people called doctors are doctors (as the word used to be understood) - and it needs to be proven that a degree is worthless (rather than the common sense idea of assuming that it is worthless unless proven otherwise).
It is assumed that economic proxy measures of resources are real, even when all the incentives are to create fake resources.
It is assumed that people can have more useful stuff per head without either working harder at making useful stuff or being more efficient at making useful stuff.
If we were talking about a comprehensible sized entity - like a village - then we would realise that coercively moving more stuff around from person to person is not the same as creating more stuff.
*
Economics as it is, is not just nonsense, but it actually prevents people from seeing the obvious.
The link between believing, policy, implementation, and effect measurement is so loose that it is irrelevant - not just slightly irrelevant but completely irrelevant; such that apparently refuted theories like the Soviet-style Command Economy are currently and actively being re-tried on a vast scale.
If communist economics has not been refuted and discarded, then nothing ever can be refuted or ruled-out! - and economics is unconstrained.
*
And that is the problem with education, immigration, economics and other abstractions - they are unconstrained.
They cannot be refuted because they are made-up stuff based on nothing.
It is like debating a Freudian analyst (something I used to try and do) - the whole thing is elaborated nonsense, and there was no way into it.
Freud had just said stuff, which was then regarded as axiomatic, and the following generations built arbitrarily higgledy piggledy on top of it. Then everybody discussed the result earnestly and treated it seriously and were very grave and concerned at the idea that it might be neglected or discarded.
*
The magical thinking of modernity is pernicious because it chucks out the natural spontaneous transcendentalism that is intrinsic to humans - chucks out the soul, gods or God, the reality of reality and The Good (objective truth, objective virtue, objective beauty) - regards these as so much arbitrary made-up stuff, disproven, left-behind, naive, silly, embarrassing...
Then modernity makes-up new stuff, lots of new stuff, ever more and newer stuff; a truly arbitrary and unfounded set of assumptions; then extrapolates unconstrainedly from these assumptions, and then builds systems which are insufficiently systematic to cohere - and then regards the end result, this random heap of constantly-changing nonsense, as real!
So modernity regards education, immigration and economics as real; and the common sense natural way of thinking of historical humankind and the majority of the world (even now) and the views of the non-intellectuals as being childish nonsense.
Modernity disbelieves in magic, yet establishes magical thinking as the unchallengeable core of modernity.
*
As I well remember from my own experience, moderns and progressives like to imagine that they are hard-nosed, rational, empirical. Yet magical thinking abounds.
It is abetted by the abstractions which underpin public discourse.
Clever people like to imagine that they are comfortable and competent in the world of abstractions; yet in my experience they are merely complacent and confused.
*
Think of 'education'. People talk a lot about the effect of education. The effect, for example, of attending college upon earnings. They gather data, study correlations...
And at the end of the day they claim that being signed up for a place called a university for three or four years enhances earnings.
The magic comes because these people really ignore, yes they do, whether the person attends college (as contrasted with working in a bar and going to parties), whether they study anything valuable - they ignore whether the place called a university is even trying to educate students and if so then in what?
Indeed, we get a situation when people really do simply sign onto the books of a college, and where the college simply lays on some random cluster of modules which they claim are academically relevant - and play around with experiments in 'delivering' these modules... and everybody imagines that somehow, something (which we can't define) called education must be going on; and everybody is terribly surprised, offended or angry when the people who have been through this 'process' seem not only to have gained nothing by it but are made worse in their general habits and exhibit a decline in useful skills.
*
Since there is no modern definition of education, the concept - the word - serves as a black box to obscure that 1. we do not know what is going-on - if anything - in modern schools and colleges, nor do we know whether it is good or bad. 2. we do not care what is going on. 3. Nonetheless we assume that something terribly important is going on - important enough that we sacrifice vastly to make sure that ever-more of it goes on for ever-more people.
Education is is a bogus discourse about abstract masses; but what could potentially be understood is at the level of individuals and their experience - their culture, skills, habits.
From that perspective it is clear than many, most, indeed the majority of individuals deteriorate in college, are damaged and corrupted by college.
From that perspective (of teachers in classrooms) it is clear that most of the official stuff that goes on in college, sometimes all of the stuff that goes on in college, is not even trying to do anything in particular at all.
*
Or 'immigration'.
This is a subject treated in a wholly magical and wishful manner.
Immigration is about getting new neighbours.
Now, is there anybody who imagines that it does not make any difference who your neighbours happen to be?
Is there anybody who would be indifferent if the new neighbour was someone who had been a gangster, torturer, professional thief. Would we expect a change of location to change them into someone indistinguishable from ourselves?
Is there anybody who would be indifferent to whether there was one new neighbour arriving, or ten or one hundred new neighbours? At some point - imprecise but definite - people cease to be new neighbours and become displacers.
Is there anyone who would be indifferent to whether the new neighbours took nothing - or whether the new neighbours in effect extracted money from your wallet to keep them in comfort (perhaps greater than your own), and to build new houses and schools (perhaps better than your own).
Yet the word, the concept, of immigration ignores these specifics - such that the abstracting intellectuals are astonished and revolted by the selfishness of anyone who tries to re-introduce reality.
Immigration is not just an abstraction, it is a compulsory abstraction - which cannot be allowed to be broken-down into specific elements. Experience and personal knowledge can be allowed to have no relevance to the concept of immigration.
In reality, it would (almost) be accurate to state that there is no such thing as 'immigration' - immigration as such is neither good nor bad - the reality is that it is (almost) entirely a matter of the characteristics (character and abilities as revealed by behaviour) of the people that are immigrating and the quantities.
The concept of immigration therefore serves almost entirely to obscure reality; and the obscuration is mandatory.
*
'Economics'.
What the heck is economics, and how on earth have we come to a situation where people seriously believe that when you are in debt, the way out of debt is to borrow more and spend more?
It is obvious that the multiple layers of abstraction of economics, the treatment of complex matters in gross aggregation, combined with the vast size and inertia and specialised interdependency of modernity - that economics has become psychotic, operating in a world of fantasy; a folie a thousands of crazed colleagues.
Economics not only assumes, but it necessarily assumes that all human beings are the same - are interchangeable units.
It assumes, for example, that differences in skills are due to education. So that the way to create more skills is to have a more educated work force. If there are more people spending three or four years at a place called a college and at the end emerging with a piece of paper called a degree - then that means more skills. If there are more people called doctors, that means more skills.
But education, as we see above, is a black box - so economists have said nothing: worse, they have corrupted discourse such that the assumption is now that certificated 'skill' is an actual skill, that people called doctors are doctors (as the word used to be understood) - and it needs to be proven that a degree is worthless (rather than the common sense idea of assuming that it is worthless unless proven otherwise).
It is assumed that economic proxy measures of resources are real, even when all the incentives are to create fake resources.
It is assumed that people can have more useful stuff per head without either working harder at making useful stuff or being more efficient at making useful stuff.
If we were talking about a comprehensible sized entity - like a village - then we would realise that coercively moving more stuff around from person to person is not the same as creating more stuff.
*
Economics as it is, is not just nonsense, but it actually prevents people from seeing the obvious.
The link between believing, policy, implementation, and effect measurement is so loose that it is irrelevant - not just slightly irrelevant but completely irrelevant; such that apparently refuted theories like the Soviet-style Command Economy are currently and actively being re-tried on a vast scale.
If communist economics has not been refuted and discarded, then nothing ever can be refuted or ruled-out! - and economics is unconstrained.
*
And that is the problem with education, immigration, economics and other abstractions - they are unconstrained.
They cannot be refuted because they are made-up stuff based on nothing.
It is like debating a Freudian analyst (something I used to try and do) - the whole thing is elaborated nonsense, and there was no way into it.
Freud had just said stuff, which was then regarded as axiomatic, and the following generations built arbitrarily higgledy piggledy on top of it. Then everybody discussed the result earnestly and treated it seriously and were very grave and concerned at the idea that it might be neglected or discarded.
*
The magical thinking of modernity is pernicious because it chucks out the natural spontaneous transcendentalism that is intrinsic to humans - chucks out the soul, gods or God, the reality of reality and The Good (objective truth, objective virtue, objective beauty) - regards these as so much arbitrary made-up stuff, disproven, left-behind, naive, silly, embarrassing...
Then modernity makes-up new stuff, lots of new stuff, ever more and newer stuff; a truly arbitrary and unfounded set of assumptions; then extrapolates unconstrainedly from these assumptions, and then builds systems which are insufficiently systematic to cohere - and then regards the end result, this random heap of constantly-changing nonsense, as real!
So modernity regards education, immigration and economics as real; and the common sense natural way of thinking of historical humankind and the majority of the world (even now) and the views of the non-intellectuals as being childish nonsense.
Modernity disbelieves in magic, yet establishes magical thinking as the unchallengeable core of modernity.
*
Tuesday 10 April 2012
Evil must be *invited* into the heart, like a vampire into the home
*
Supposedly, a vampire cannot come into a house unless invited; evil is much the same with respect to the human heart.
It seems likely that humans are intrinsically protected by a kind of natural innocence - but that this protection is breached if evil is invited.
This still applies, now as ever, but temptation in the modern world resembles having a lifelong series of vampires ringing the doorbell and requesting or demanding admission; some apparently beautiful, others viscerally sexy; some dominant and demanding, others dependant and desperate...
Sooner or later, most people will be worn-down or taken off-guard say yes; invite the vampire into their home - evil into their heart.
But once the vampire is inside it may be much more difficult to get rid of it.
Not least because you may be bitten and yourself become a vampire: one whose pleasure is to prey upon the innocent, to corrupt the Good.
*
Supposedly, a vampire cannot come into a house unless invited; evil is much the same with respect to the human heart.
It seems likely that humans are intrinsically protected by a kind of natural innocence - but that this protection is breached if evil is invited.
This still applies, now as ever, but temptation in the modern world resembles having a lifelong series of vampires ringing the doorbell and requesting or demanding admission; some apparently beautiful, others viscerally sexy; some dominant and demanding, others dependant and desperate...
Sooner or later, most people will be worn-down or taken off-guard say yes; invite the vampire into their home - evil into their heart.
But once the vampire is inside it may be much more difficult to get rid of it.
Not least because you may be bitten and yourself become a vampire: one whose pleasure is to prey upon the innocent, to corrupt the Good.
*
What reactionary Christians need most are multiple worked-examples
*
We learn a difficult and alien way of thinking such as mathematics by working-through multiple examples - doing lists of calculations.
Eventually, with intelligence and hard work, the language of mathematics becomes spontaneous.
*
We get the same training in Leftism from the mass media, civil administration, mainstream educational institutions, the arts... we are given multiple worked-examples of how to think in a difficult and alien way that leaves-out God and the transcendental; leaves out objective morality, objective beauty, the imperative for truthfulness; is cynical about purpose and meaning; leaves-out the soul, the soul's survival after death...
and is predicated (without argument) on the assumption that maximising the short term pleasure and minimising the personal suffering of ourselves is the primary goal of individual life; and maximising the short term pleasure and minimising the suffering of approved groups is the primary goal of public policy .
*
So, when a news story is discussed, when a government policy is described, when an educational topic is introduced, when a novel or movie is plotted, when a poster is designed... each is a specific worked example of Leftism; thus by being taken-through multiple concrete instances we are being trained in the way of thought that is Leftism.
*
Leftism (and atheism) is as unnatural as mathematics, indeed much more unnatural (albeit much easier) since its dominance is so recent and localised; yet secular materialist Leftism is so pervasive - and so attention-grabbing and addictive - that this artificial perspective has made it almost impossible for many modern intellectuals to think in a way which was perfectly natural and spontaneous for scores of generations.
*
Modern intellectuals need to be trained to think spontaneously and naturally!
More importantly we need to be trained to think in a way that is amenable to Christianity; because the secular materialist Leftist way of thinking is utterly hostile to Christianity.
To such an one, to the trained modern intellectual, Christianity is simply absurd and incomprehensible.
*
The secular modern way of thinking simply excludes that which is necessary for Christianity to make sense.
Just as mathematics is learned by worked examples of of mathematical principles applied to multiple concrete situations; so the modern intellectual needs to learn Christianity by worked examples of Christian belief applied to multiple concrete situations.
*
Worked examples of Christian belief in practice (especially, in practice under conditions relevant to modern Christians) are therefore a vital supplement to learning Christian principles.
Reactionary Christians can perform a valuable service for each other by displaying (orally and in writing) multiple 'worked examples' of Christian beliefs in modern practise.
This means it is not going to be enough to state Christian principles (the basis of belief), nor is it enough to state the results (the necessary beliefs), but Christians should be showing the workings.
*
My suggestion is that it would be very helpful if Christian bloggers should show - in multiple worked examples - how they personally get from general beliefs to concrete behaviours, in multiple, specific worked examples.
*
We learn a difficult and alien way of thinking such as mathematics by working-through multiple examples - doing lists of calculations.
Eventually, with intelligence and hard work, the language of mathematics becomes spontaneous.
*
We get the same training in Leftism from the mass media, civil administration, mainstream educational institutions, the arts... we are given multiple worked-examples of how to think in a difficult and alien way that leaves-out God and the transcendental; leaves out objective morality, objective beauty, the imperative for truthfulness; is cynical about purpose and meaning; leaves-out the soul, the soul's survival after death...
and is predicated (without argument) on the assumption that maximising the short term pleasure and minimising the personal suffering of ourselves is the primary goal of individual life; and maximising the short term pleasure and minimising the suffering of approved groups is the primary goal of public policy .
*
So, when a news story is discussed, when a government policy is described, when an educational topic is introduced, when a novel or movie is plotted, when a poster is designed... each is a specific worked example of Leftism; thus by being taken-through multiple concrete instances we are being trained in the way of thought that is Leftism.
*
Leftism (and atheism) is as unnatural as mathematics, indeed much more unnatural (albeit much easier) since its dominance is so recent and localised; yet secular materialist Leftism is so pervasive - and so attention-grabbing and addictive - that this artificial perspective has made it almost impossible for many modern intellectuals to think in a way which was perfectly natural and spontaneous for scores of generations.
*
Modern intellectuals need to be trained to think spontaneously and naturally!
More importantly we need to be trained to think in a way that is amenable to Christianity; because the secular materialist Leftist way of thinking is utterly hostile to Christianity.
To such an one, to the trained modern intellectual, Christianity is simply absurd and incomprehensible.
*
The secular modern way of thinking simply excludes that which is necessary for Christianity to make sense.
Just as mathematics is learned by worked examples of of mathematical principles applied to multiple concrete situations; so the modern intellectual needs to learn Christianity by worked examples of Christian belief applied to multiple concrete situations.
*
Worked examples of Christian belief in practice (especially, in practice under conditions relevant to modern Christians) are therefore a vital supplement to learning Christian principles.
Reactionary Christians can perform a valuable service for each other by displaying (orally and in writing) multiple 'worked examples' of Christian beliefs in modern practise.
This means it is not going to be enough to state Christian principles (the basis of belief), nor is it enough to state the results (the necessary beliefs), but Christians should be showing the workings.
*
My suggestion is that it would be very helpful if Christian bloggers should show - in multiple worked examples - how they personally get from general beliefs to concrete behaviours, in multiple, specific worked examples.
*
Monday 9 April 2012
Do Leftists really intend evil, or it is just an accident?
*
The bad news is that Leftists really do evil on purpose and it is not a matter of good intentions accidentally gone astray.
How do I know this?
Because they do not correct their errors.
*
E.g. Leftist policies destroy marriage, and when this destruction is obvious they do not repent and undo the policies but continue to add new policies which continue to destroy marriage. Therefore, the policies are intended to destroy marriage.
*
Any policy which leads to harm and yet not repented and reversed was, we must infer, done deliberately - with intent to harm.
When Leftism leads to communist totalitarian evil, and the result appears again and again, then we must conclude that this is deliberate.
We must first learn to recognise evil - and this means we must acknowledge the reality and commonness of evil intent - of planned, unrepentant, recidivist evil.
*
The bad news is that Leftists really do evil on purpose and it is not a matter of good intentions accidentally gone astray.
How do I know this?
Because they do not correct their errors.
*
E.g. Leftist policies destroy marriage, and when this destruction is obvious they do not repent and undo the policies but continue to add new policies which continue to destroy marriage. Therefore, the policies are intended to destroy marriage.
*
Any policy which leads to harm and yet not repented and reversed was, we must infer, done deliberately - with intent to harm.
When Leftism leads to communist totalitarian evil, and the result appears again and again, then we must conclude that this is deliberate.
We must first learn to recognise evil - and this means we must acknowledge the reality and commonness of evil intent - of planned, unrepentant, recidivist evil.
*
Sunday 8 April 2012
First we must recognise evil
*
We must recognise the evil that is so prevalent and pervasive. We are reluctant to do so, because it seems to be judgmental and blaming; yet it must be done.
The traditional and all but universal belief in purposive evil is perhaps necessary for this, including the prevalence and pervasiveness of demonic influences.
Purposive evil is working through people, including ourselves, but pretending it isn't and that all bad things are inadvertent is simply untrue.
Bad things happen due to bad intent, yet the intent may be coming through people rather than originating within them.
Indeed, surely this is normal. This is the way that evil becomes so common, so normal. The person who does evil has a clear conscience, having merely said yes to the promptings of evil...
*
We must recognise the evil that is so prevalent and pervasive. We are reluctant to do so, because it seems to be judgmental and blaming; yet it must be done.
The traditional and all but universal belief in purposive evil is perhaps necessary for this, including the prevalence and pervasiveness of demonic influences.
Purposive evil is working through people, including ourselves, but pretending it isn't and that all bad things are inadvertent is simply untrue.
Bad things happen due to bad intent, yet the intent may be coming through people rather than originating within them.
Indeed, surely this is normal. This is the way that evil becomes so common, so normal. The person who does evil has a clear conscience, having merely said yes to the promptings of evil...
*
First we must recognise evil
*
We must recognise the evil that is so prevalent and pervasive. We are reluctant to do so, because it seems to be judgmental and blaming; yet it must be done.
The traditional and all but universal belief in purposive evil is perhaps necessary for this, including the prevalence and pervasiveness of demonic influences.
Purposive evil is working through people, including ourselves, but pretending it isn't and that all bad things are inadvertent is simply untrue.
Bad things happen due to bad intent, yet the intent may be coming through people rather than originating within them.
Indeed, surely this is normal. This is the way that evil becomes so sommon, so normal. The person who does evil has a clear conscience, having merely said yes to the promptings of evil...
We must recognise the evil that is so prevalent and pervasive. We are reluctant to do so, because it seems to be judgmental and blaming; yet it must be done.
The traditional and all but universal belief in purposive evil is perhaps necessary for this, including the prevalence and pervasiveness of demonic influences.
Purposive evil is working through people, including ourselves, but pretending it isn't and that all bad things are inadvertent is simply untrue.
Bad things happen due to bad intent, yet the intent may be coming through people rather than originating within them.
Indeed, surely this is normal. This is the way that evil becomes so sommon, so normal. The person who does evil has a clear conscience, having merely said yes to the promptings of evil...
The demonic addictiveness of atheism
*
The young person is an atheist because Christianity stands in the path of what makes him happy; the old person remains an atheist because Christianity offers eternal happiness - which he now despises as beneath him.
The first is an atheist because he is a hedonist who lives for pleasure; the second because he is a stoic who regards himself as advanced beyond any concern with pleasure.
The atheist youth is too proud to be bound by the conventional knowledge and petty rules of former generations and insists on doing it his own way; the atheist geriatric is too proud to admit the hope less ness of the life he has created for himself.
(The demons laugh at the triumph of pride. The transformation of a youth who will risk anything for the chance of pleasure to the elder who will sacrifice everything to reject the promise of happiness.)
*
The young person is an atheist because Christianity stands in the path of what makes him happy; the old person remains an atheist because Christianity offers eternal happiness - which he now despises as beneath him.
The first is an atheist because he is a hedonist who lives for pleasure; the second because he is a stoic who regards himself as advanced beyond any concern with pleasure.
The atheist youth is too proud to be bound by the conventional knowledge and petty rules of former generations and insists on doing it his own way; the atheist geriatric is too proud to admit the hope less ness of the life he has created for himself.
(The demons laugh at the triumph of pride. The transformation of a youth who will risk anything for the chance of pleasure to the elder who will sacrifice everything to reject the promise of happiness.)
*
Sunday 1 April 2012
The metaphysics of Truth
*
Is there such a thing as truth? Can humans comprehend it? What is true? What kind of thing is truth... etc.
For these to be meaningful questions requires metaphysical principles (either explicit or implicitly).
Is there such a thing as truth and can humans comprehend it?
*
Yes and yes - because it is not coherent to deny truth nor to deny that humans can comprehend it.
To deny truth or say that humans cannot comprehend truth is simply to claim as a human that you know that it is the truth that there is no truth or that humans cannot comprehend it.
So we must assume that there is truth and humans can discover it.
The only alternative is non-cognition.
*
This is not a discovery, it is not a consequence of experience, nor science, nor of any kind of investigation...
It is a simply rational necessity that humans acknowledge the reality of truth and its accessibility to humans.
Everybody is born knowing this stuff, everybody in the world and throughout history does in fact know it and live by it.
(Everybody in the world and though history, that is, except a statistically insignificant minority of clever silly intellectuals who have exchanged this obvious metaphysical basis for nihilistic, self-refuting and self-destroying psychoticism. I mean people just like myself and nearly all of the readers of this blog - for at least some period of our lives - and the entire ruling elite of the West.)
*
OK - that is sorted out (really, it is sorted out - no need to dwell further on it).
Next thing is on that basis we can investigate the nature of truth (e.g. that it must be eternal and universal), how humans in fact get to know the truth, limitations on knowing the truth - and stuff like that.
But such investigations are underpinned by the absolute metaphysical assurance that in principle there is a truth to be known and we can know it.
*
Is there such a thing as truth? Can humans comprehend it? What is true? What kind of thing is truth... etc.
For these to be meaningful questions requires metaphysical principles (either explicit or implicitly).
Is there such a thing as truth and can humans comprehend it?
*
Yes and yes - because it is not coherent to deny truth nor to deny that humans can comprehend it.
To deny truth or say that humans cannot comprehend truth is simply to claim as a human that you know that it is the truth that there is no truth or that humans cannot comprehend it.
So we must assume that there is truth and humans can discover it.
The only alternative is non-cognition.
*
This is not a discovery, it is not a consequence of experience, nor science, nor of any kind of investigation...
It is a simply rational necessity that humans acknowledge the reality of truth and its accessibility to humans.
Everybody is born knowing this stuff, everybody in the world and throughout history does in fact know it and live by it.
(Everybody in the world and though history, that is, except a statistically insignificant minority of clever silly intellectuals who have exchanged this obvious metaphysical basis for nihilistic, self-refuting and self-destroying psychoticism. I mean people just like myself and nearly all of the readers of this blog - for at least some period of our lives - and the entire ruling elite of the West.)
*
OK - that is sorted out (really, it is sorted out - no need to dwell further on it).
Next thing is on that basis we can investigate the nature of truth (e.g. that it must be eternal and universal), how humans in fact get to know the truth, limitations on knowing the truth - and stuff like that.
But such investigations are underpinned by the absolute metaphysical assurance that in principle there is a truth to be known and we can know it.
*
Saturday 31 March 2012
Rowan Atkinson - the longest running funny man?
*
After having seen and laughed at Johnny English Reborn I realized that Rowan Atkinson is by far the longest running funny man I could think of.
For most men, comedy is a thing of their youth and early adulthood, or a stepping stone to something easier and less strenuous to do well; but R.A. has been very famous and funny since 1979 and Not the Nine O'Clock News and he is now even more famous and still funny.
That is considerably more than thirty years at the top of his game!
Rowan Atkinson is still primarily a comedian when all the other comics of that era have long since stopped being funny, and mostly stopped even trying to be funny.
Yet Atkinson is still there in front of the camera making people laugh by his own efforts; and has not become a presenter or actor or politician.
He is first and last a funny man - one of the greats.
*
Note: the first time I saw the early TV episodes of Mr Bean I laughed so much that I it was almost uncontrollable - and I felt ill. I invited a friend around to see it on video - and he literally had to leave the room - it was simply too painful to laugh that hard.
*
After having seen and laughed at Johnny English Reborn I realized that Rowan Atkinson is by far the longest running funny man I could think of.
For most men, comedy is a thing of their youth and early adulthood, or a stepping stone to something easier and less strenuous to do well; but R.A. has been very famous and funny since 1979 and Not the Nine O'Clock News and he is now even more famous and still funny.
That is considerably more than thirty years at the top of his game!
Rowan Atkinson is still primarily a comedian when all the other comics of that era have long since stopped being funny, and mostly stopped even trying to be funny.
Yet Atkinson is still there in front of the camera making people laugh by his own efforts; and has not become a presenter or actor or politician.
He is first and last a funny man - one of the greats.
*
Note: the first time I saw the early TV episodes of Mr Bean I laughed so much that I it was almost uncontrollable - and I felt ill. I invited a friend around to see it on video - and he literally had to leave the room - it was simply too painful to laugh that hard.
*
Why is Harry Potter so focused on his dead parents?
*
Before I understood the deep (and Christian) level of the Harry Potter novels, in other words before reading the Deathly Hallows, I found his relentless focus on his dead parents either unconvincing or pathological.
After all, his parents were killed while he was a baby, and Harry had no memory of them (until the memories were re-awakened by various magical means - such as the Dementors - later in the series).
*
The surface (sentimental?) explanation for Harry's growing fixation on his dead parents (exemplified by the Mirror of Erised episode in Volume 1) is that his adopted parents (the Dursley's) are horrible people who are deliberately mean to him.
But this explanation 'merely' implies the self-interested idea that Harry thinks he would have been more kindly and generously treated by his natural parents. This is almost certainly true, but not enough to bear the moral weight of a seven volume series.
If Harry's strong feelings about his dead parents really was based on the comparative nastiness of the Dursley's, then it would be, at bottom, 'merely' a desire for comfort and pleasure on Harry's part; which, while understandable (don't we all share it?) is not exactly admirable.
*
A deeper, but as it turns-out incorrect, explanation is that Harry has a kind of pathological, fantasy fixation on his dead parents - presumably as a consequence of having been-lied-to about them, or as a projection onto them of unrealistic levels of perfection.
There series of novels would then be seen as a progress away from over-idealised imagination towards a real understanding of his parents.
This would make the Harry Potter saga into a psychodrama of personal growth. But Harry is the hero, and it does not make sense for him to be motivated by something that is so purely personal. A hero saves his community - not only himself, and Harry's feelings for his dead parents are bound up with this.
*
The deeper picture which emerges over the course of the whole saga is that there are strong elements of destiny and heredity at work.
Harry begins by identifying with his father - for his exploits in Quiddich, his magical skill and as a dominant 'gang leader'; but ends by recognising that his father was also a spiteful bully and that the best in Harry comes from his mother: specifically his mother's exceptionally loving nature which has both affected Harry and been inherited by him.
This is symbolised by the fact that Harry looks almost identical to his father, except that he has his mother's eyes (and therefore, it implied, soul).
The people who best understand Harry (e.g. Dumbledore, Lupin and Snape just as he dies) recognise that Harry is 'his mother's son', but the people who misunderstand Harry (e.g. Snape until he dies, and Sirius) see Harry almost as a reincarnation of his father.
*
The stunning revelations of Deathly Hallows (prefigured in the graveyard at the end of Goblet) include that Harry's dead parents are not dead, gone and extinguished, but continue to live another existence 'beyond the veil' - aware of Harry, with some possibility of communication, and even able to provide some kind of support to him.
The deep metaphysical, and Christian, message of the Harry Potter series is that love has permanent effects: love affects everything and everybody forever.
Love may be overcome by evil, but is never destroyed by it.
*
Before I understood the deep (and Christian) level of the Harry Potter novels, in other words before reading the Deathly Hallows, I found his relentless focus on his dead parents either unconvincing or pathological.
After all, his parents were killed while he was a baby, and Harry had no memory of them (until the memories were re-awakened by various magical means - such as the Dementors - later in the series).
*
The surface (sentimental?) explanation for Harry's growing fixation on his dead parents (exemplified by the Mirror of Erised episode in Volume 1) is that his adopted parents (the Dursley's) are horrible people who are deliberately mean to him.
But this explanation 'merely' implies the self-interested idea that Harry thinks he would have been more kindly and generously treated by his natural parents. This is almost certainly true, but not enough to bear the moral weight of a seven volume series.
If Harry's strong feelings about his dead parents really was based on the comparative nastiness of the Dursley's, then it would be, at bottom, 'merely' a desire for comfort and pleasure on Harry's part; which, while understandable (don't we all share it?) is not exactly admirable.
*
A deeper, but as it turns-out incorrect, explanation is that Harry has a kind of pathological, fantasy fixation on his dead parents - presumably as a consequence of having been-lied-to about them, or as a projection onto them of unrealistic levels of perfection.
There series of novels would then be seen as a progress away from over-idealised imagination towards a real understanding of his parents.
This would make the Harry Potter saga into a psychodrama of personal growth. But Harry is the hero, and it does not make sense for him to be motivated by something that is so purely personal. A hero saves his community - not only himself, and Harry's feelings for his dead parents are bound up with this.
*
The deeper picture which emerges over the course of the whole saga is that there are strong elements of destiny and heredity at work.
Harry begins by identifying with his father - for his exploits in Quiddich, his magical skill and as a dominant 'gang leader'; but ends by recognising that his father was also a spiteful bully and that the best in Harry comes from his mother: specifically his mother's exceptionally loving nature which has both affected Harry and been inherited by him.
This is symbolised by the fact that Harry looks almost identical to his father, except that he has his mother's eyes (and therefore, it implied, soul).
The people who best understand Harry (e.g. Dumbledore, Lupin and Snape just as he dies) recognise that Harry is 'his mother's son', but the people who misunderstand Harry (e.g. Snape until he dies, and Sirius) see Harry almost as a reincarnation of his father.
*
The stunning revelations of Deathly Hallows (prefigured in the graveyard at the end of Goblet) include that Harry's dead parents are not dead, gone and extinguished, but continue to live another existence 'beyond the veil' - aware of Harry, with some possibility of communication, and even able to provide some kind of support to him.
The deep metaphysical, and Christian, message of the Harry Potter series is that love has permanent effects: love affects everything and everybody forever.
Love may be overcome by evil, but is never destroyed by it.
*
Friday 30 March 2012
Preparing for the underground Church - by Richard Wurmbrand
*
Richard Wurmbrand (1909-2001) was a Protestant Pastor in Romania where he was imprisoned and tortured for fourteen years by the Communist regime.
He left behind some invaluable words of advice for Christians contemplating a dark future - I pray they will never be necessary.
http://www.shilohouse.org/wurmbrand.htm
I append an excerpt, but, more than is usually the case, you need to read the whole thing.
H/T Dale Nelson
*
DOUBT MAKES TRAITORS
I am Jewish. In Hebrew, the language which Jesus Himself spoke and in which the first revelation has been given, the word "doubt" does not exist.
To doubt is as wrong for a man as it would be for him to walk on four legs – he is not meant to walk on four legs. A man walks erect; he is not a beast. To doubt is sub-human.
To every one of us doubts come, but do not allow doubts about essential doctrines of the Bible such as the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or the existence of eternal life to make a nest in your mind.
Every theological or philosophical doubt makes you a potential traitor.
You can allow yourself doubts while you have a nice study and you prepare sermons, and you eat well - or you write a book. Then you can allow yourself all kinds of daring ideas and doubts. When you are tortured these doubts are changed into treason because you have to decide to live or die for this faith.
One of the most important things about the spiritual preparation of an underground worker is the solution of his doubts. In mathematics, if you do not find the solution you may have made a mistake somewhere, so you continue until you find out.
Don't live with doubts, but seek their solution.
http://www.shilohouse.org/wurmbrand.htm
*
What's wrong with Christian heresies?
*
The problem with Christian heresies is almost exclusively a problem with intellectuals, especially professionals.
(Of course, the main problem is determining who is the heretic; since both sides claim to be orthodox.)
But, to take the example I know most about, Mormons could be regarded as a Christian heresy - what is the problem?
*
The problem relates to several of the second-order aspects of Christian doctrine: it is mostly a matter of theology.
Because in terms of actual behaviour, Mormons are pretty much indistinguishable from other types of Christian except that they are more devout than average Christians (i.e. more 'Christian' in their behaviour, to use common language).
*
But Mormons have no professional priesthood (or, more exactly, a trivially small proportion of professionals, who are nonetheless very important), so a comprehensive and consistent theology is of little importance to them; and theological limitations (or heresies) - incompleteness, contradictions... have little impact.
At least, I find it difficult to observe any particular problems which have arisen from Mormon theology over the past 180 years.
*
The main thing about Mormon theology is that the heretical aspects (heretical from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, especially) arise becuase Mormon theology is very concrete (not abstract), very narrative and time-bound (not focused on 'eternity'), very close-up and personal (not philosophical).
Mormon 'heresies' are therefore not so much deliberate deviations as the natural consequences of re-expressing Christianity in concrete and temporal fashion for the plain man.
Mormon theology is intrinsically realistic and narrative in style and concepts, and could not express the subtleties of Catholic theology, even if it set out to do so - which it does not.
*
For example, instead of the abstract, mystical and intricate conception of the Holy Trinity (e.g. as expressed in the Athanasian Creed), Mormons have God the Father and Son as separate actual persons.
From a theological perspective, this is heretical and incorrect; but the accurate Christian conception of the Trinity is - well - very difficult to understand; very abstract, very mystical.
And without a professional priesthood, and a few hundred years of theology, this kind of abstract conception cannot ever develop or survive.
*
My point: there are gross and deliberate heresies which must be resisted, but many heresies are more like re-expressions; and the people who are most at risk from heresies are therefore intellectuals and religious professionals.
Indeed, for intellectuals and religious professionals, there is no form of orthodox Christianity which is heresy-proof - intellectuals can make anything into a heresy, and lead others down the path.
*
A heresy is like a fork in the road - but some heresies fork-off then go in-parallel with frequent crossings-between; other heresies lead further and further away from the truth.
Looking back to 1830 when Mormonism was founded, we can see that it has not 'strayed' far or indeed significantly, and (except theologically) it does not look as if there are any real barriers between Mormonism and orthodox traditional Christians.
*
But orthodox traditional Christians are (in terms of power) no longer the mainstream.
Liberal Christianity, which began to develop at the same time, was not obviously a heresy for many years. Indeed, since it has captured most of the intellectuals and theologians and professionals in religion, Liberal Christianity sees itself as the mainstream.
Yet, Liberal Christianity has - from heresies so subtle as to be hardly perceptible for many decades, heresies embraced by the many or most of the leading theologians and intellectuals, by now diverged so far away from tradition and orthodoxy that it rejects all of Christian history up until a few decades ago; it also rejects paganism (Natural Law) and has nothing in common with any other major religion.
*
So there is this about heresy: that heresy which seems clear and gross from a theological perspective may be of trivial significance, indeed have some very obvious benefits - while subtle heresy may lead to a situation indistinguishable from total apostasy.
*
The main lesson is that theology is not Christianity; and that for most Christians throughout history and around the world, their 'theology' is necessarily very simple, concrete, common-sensical and story-like - and therefore (from a philosophical perspective) necessarily incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate.
But how much does this matter?
Wrong theology may lead a Christian significantly far astray - but not necessarily. And perhaps it is seldom the wrong theology which does the leading astray; the problem comes when the desire to stray distorts theology, and the resulting distortion may be very subtle indeed - imperceptible, at first, from the intrinsic inconsistency of human affairs.
But a simple Christian with incorrect theology may be, often is, and historically usually has been a better Christian than the theologically-correct intellectual and professional.
*
The problem with Christian heresies is almost exclusively a problem with intellectuals, especially professionals.
(Of course, the main problem is determining who is the heretic; since both sides claim to be orthodox.)
But, to take the example I know most about, Mormons could be regarded as a Christian heresy - what is the problem?
*
The problem relates to several of the second-order aspects of Christian doctrine: it is mostly a matter of theology.
Because in terms of actual behaviour, Mormons are pretty much indistinguishable from other types of Christian except that they are more devout than average Christians (i.e. more 'Christian' in their behaviour, to use common language).
*
But Mormons have no professional priesthood (or, more exactly, a trivially small proportion of professionals, who are nonetheless very important), so a comprehensive and consistent theology is of little importance to them; and theological limitations (or heresies) - incompleteness, contradictions... have little impact.
At least, I find it difficult to observe any particular problems which have arisen from Mormon theology over the past 180 years.
*
The main thing about Mormon theology is that the heretical aspects (heretical from the perspective of Roman Catholicism, especially) arise becuase Mormon theology is very concrete (not abstract), very narrative and time-bound (not focused on 'eternity'), very close-up and personal (not philosophical).
Mormon 'heresies' are therefore not so much deliberate deviations as the natural consequences of re-expressing Christianity in concrete and temporal fashion for the plain man.
Mormon theology is intrinsically realistic and narrative in style and concepts, and could not express the subtleties of Catholic theology, even if it set out to do so - which it does not.
*
For example, instead of the abstract, mystical and intricate conception of the Holy Trinity (e.g. as expressed in the Athanasian Creed), Mormons have God the Father and Son as separate actual persons.
From a theological perspective, this is heretical and incorrect; but the accurate Christian conception of the Trinity is - well - very difficult to understand; very abstract, very mystical.
And without a professional priesthood, and a few hundred years of theology, this kind of abstract conception cannot ever develop or survive.
*
My point: there are gross and deliberate heresies which must be resisted, but many heresies are more like re-expressions; and the people who are most at risk from heresies are therefore intellectuals and religious professionals.
Indeed, for intellectuals and religious professionals, there is no form of orthodox Christianity which is heresy-proof - intellectuals can make anything into a heresy, and lead others down the path.
*
A heresy is like a fork in the road - but some heresies fork-off then go in-parallel with frequent crossings-between; other heresies lead further and further away from the truth.
Looking back to 1830 when Mormonism was founded, we can see that it has not 'strayed' far or indeed significantly, and (except theologically) it does not look as if there are any real barriers between Mormonism and orthodox traditional Christians.
*
But orthodox traditional Christians are (in terms of power) no longer the mainstream.
Liberal Christianity, which began to develop at the same time, was not obviously a heresy for many years. Indeed, since it has captured most of the intellectuals and theologians and professionals in religion, Liberal Christianity sees itself as the mainstream.
Yet, Liberal Christianity has - from heresies so subtle as to be hardly perceptible for many decades, heresies embraced by the many or most of the leading theologians and intellectuals, by now diverged so far away from tradition and orthodoxy that it rejects all of Christian history up until a few decades ago; it also rejects paganism (Natural Law) and has nothing in common with any other major religion.
*
So there is this about heresy: that heresy which seems clear and gross from a theological perspective may be of trivial significance, indeed have some very obvious benefits - while subtle heresy may lead to a situation indistinguishable from total apostasy.
*
The main lesson is that theology is not Christianity; and that for most Christians throughout history and around the world, their 'theology' is necessarily very simple, concrete, common-sensical and story-like - and therefore (from a philosophical perspective) necessarily incomplete, inconsistent and inaccurate.
But how much does this matter?
Wrong theology may lead a Christian significantly far astray - but not necessarily. And perhaps it is seldom the wrong theology which does the leading astray; the problem comes when the desire to stray distorts theology, and the resulting distortion may be very subtle indeed - imperceptible, at first, from the intrinsic inconsistency of human affairs.
But a simple Christian with incorrect theology may be, often is, and historically usually has been a better Christian than the theologically-correct intellectual and professional.
*
Thursday 29 March 2012
The Lambert Simnel/ Herschel Grynszpan Strategies
*
Lambert Simnel was a random poor kid adopted by an elite Yorkist and relabelled as heir to the throne of England (recently occupied by Henry VII) - actually a puppet for powerful interest groups.
First Simnel was going to be passed off as the Duke of York, but he was eventually claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, and a rebellion was begun by raising an army in Ireland and having him 'crowned' King Edward VI.
The rebels invaded England but were defeated - and the child Simnel was pardoned and allowed to live as a servant in the King's household.
*
It used to seem strange that a random kid was pulled from obscurity by the elites and claimed to be someone he was not; but of course, now it happens all the time.
I was peripherally involved in fighting an example of the Lambert Simnel Strategy in 2000 when an upper middle class girl called Laura Spence (her father was a headmaster which puts her in socal class 1) was plucked from Obscurity by Gordon Brown (then Chancellor, later Prime Minister) who claimed she represented the poor from the North and State Schools who were being excluded from Oxford on snobbish grounds.
The UK government then used this faked-up injustice to take-over control of university admissions, a process which is now almost complete.
*
Herschel Grynszpan was another kid, but he shot and killed a German diplomat as a protest against the Nazi expulsion of the Jews, which act was used to rationalize the Kristallnacht.
From an analytic perspective, the Herschel Grynszpan strategy shows who really is suppressing whom in a society, who is really dominant.
Who is really being persecuted, and who is doing the persecuting.
*
The people who used Simnel and Grynspan knew exactly what they were doing: they were deliberately setting out to deceive people; and they succeeded in deceiving many people.
They caused a great deal of suffering and death.
*
The Lambert Simnel strategy is almost the opposite of the Herschel Grynszpan Strategy - in the first an obscure person is put forward as representative of the Good, and used to justify a revolutionary takeover; in the second an obscure person is put forward as representative of the Evils of a whole group, and used to justify a revolutionary takeover.
Both Lambert Simnel and Herschel Grynszpan were manufactured excuses for elite to do what they wanted to do, excuses to implement a predesigned plan.
*
As excuses, Simnel was completely faked, Grynszpan was semi-real.
But there has been considerable 'moral progress' and much greater public dissemination of communications since 1938: nowadays, both would be faked.
***
Other variants could be added at will: for example the Horst Wessel Strategy, whereby somebody who has been killed (or, nowadays, subjected to hurt feelings) is fabricated into a saint and martyr for the cause; and their death (or unhappiness) a sweeping condemnation of the those who are asserted to be associated-with the killing (or hurtful comment).
The who-whom of a successful Horst Wessel strategy is evidence of the reality of societal power relations.
*
Lambert Simnel was a random poor kid adopted by an elite Yorkist and relabelled as heir to the throne of England (recently occupied by Henry VII) - actually a puppet for powerful interest groups.
First Simnel was going to be passed off as the Duke of York, but he was eventually claimed to be the Earl of Warwick, and a rebellion was begun by raising an army in Ireland and having him 'crowned' King Edward VI.
The rebels invaded England but were defeated - and the child Simnel was pardoned and allowed to live as a servant in the King's household.
*
It used to seem strange that a random kid was pulled from obscurity by the elites and claimed to be someone he was not; but of course, now it happens all the time.
I was peripherally involved in fighting an example of the Lambert Simnel Strategy in 2000 when an upper middle class girl called Laura Spence (her father was a headmaster which puts her in socal class 1) was plucked from Obscurity by Gordon Brown (then Chancellor, later Prime Minister) who claimed she represented the poor from the North and State Schools who were being excluded from Oxford on snobbish grounds.
The UK government then used this faked-up injustice to take-over control of university admissions, a process which is now almost complete.
*
Herschel Grynszpan was another kid, but he shot and killed a German diplomat as a protest against the Nazi expulsion of the Jews, which act was used to rationalize the Kristallnacht.
From an analytic perspective, the Herschel Grynszpan strategy shows who really is suppressing whom in a society, who is really dominant.
Who is really being persecuted, and who is doing the persecuting.
*
The people who used Simnel and Grynspan knew exactly what they were doing: they were deliberately setting out to deceive people; and they succeeded in deceiving many people.
They caused a great deal of suffering and death.
*
The Lambert Simnel strategy is almost the opposite of the Herschel Grynszpan Strategy - in the first an obscure person is put forward as representative of the Good, and used to justify a revolutionary takeover; in the second an obscure person is put forward as representative of the Evils of a whole group, and used to justify a revolutionary takeover.
Both Lambert Simnel and Herschel Grynszpan were manufactured excuses for elite to do what they wanted to do, excuses to implement a predesigned plan.
*
As excuses, Simnel was completely faked, Grynszpan was semi-real.
But there has been considerable 'moral progress' and much greater public dissemination of communications since 1938: nowadays, both would be faked.
***
Other variants could be added at will: for example the Horst Wessel Strategy, whereby somebody who has been killed (or, nowadays, subjected to hurt feelings) is fabricated into a saint and martyr for the cause; and their death (or unhappiness) a sweeping condemnation of the those who are asserted to be associated-with the killing (or hurtful comment).
The who-whom of a successful Horst Wessel strategy is evidence of the reality of societal power relations.
*
Me, on the cusp of becoming a Christian...
*
This talk I gave in October 2008, which the organizers (not me!) put onto YouTube, represents my thinking just a few months before I became explicitly, publicly a Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y13vPXFnvc
In it I distinguish two attitudes to Human Nature: the Transcendental, for which I use the example of Mormonism; and the Transhumanist, the project to transcend, therefore change, Human Nature.
If you can be bothered to plough-through this rather turgid lecture, you will see that even at this time (not that long ago) I was not a reactionary, but was indeed still pro-modernity - hence a kind of (unwitting, residual) progressive/ Leftist/ 'liberal'.
*
This talk I gave in October 2008, which the organizers (not me!) put onto YouTube, represents my thinking just a few months before I became explicitly, publicly a Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y13vPXFnvc
In it I distinguish two attitudes to Human Nature: the Transcendental, for which I use the example of Mormonism; and the Transhumanist, the project to transcend, therefore change, Human Nature.
If you can be bothered to plough-through this rather turgid lecture, you will see that even at this time (not that long ago) I was not a reactionary, but was indeed still pro-modernity - hence a kind of (unwitting, residual) progressive/ Leftist/ 'liberal'.
*
Wednesday 28 March 2012
Systemizing, 'autism' and poor explaining ability - the need for apprenticeship
*
The linear, sequential style of thinking which Simon Baron Cohen calls 'systemizing' - typical of 'autism spectrum' disorders, Asperger's syndrome etc. - is associated with specialized, focused, 'technical' expertise - mathematics, computers, engineering, crafts...
Yet experts with these traits are often poor explainers, poor teachers - how then can their vital skills be transmitted?
*
This is, I think, because systemizers do not see things in an overview, so they cannot provide a summary - but when they explain something they describe it as they experience it:
that is, they start at the beginning and go through to the end, without missing a step,
precision and completeness takes precedence over comprehension,
and this sequence may take a long time - too long for most people's attention span and absorptive ability.
*
This is why so many tecchy people are so bad at explaining things.
And they cannot help themselves, because they are simply transmitting the world as they see the world.
*
This is why formal teaching is limited and why apprenticeship is vital to the communication of skills.
Apprenticeship entails the master and the apprentice spending long periods of time working together for several years; and in these circumstances even the worst 'teacher' can pass on his skills to an eager student.
Apprenticeship is how traditional societies overcome the fact - the fact intrinsic to some types of expertise - that the people whose skills are most vital are often among the worst teachers.
*
The linear, sequential style of thinking which Simon Baron Cohen calls 'systemizing' - typical of 'autism spectrum' disorders, Asperger's syndrome etc. - is associated with specialized, focused, 'technical' expertise - mathematics, computers, engineering, crafts...
Yet experts with these traits are often poor explainers, poor teachers - how then can their vital skills be transmitted?
*
This is, I think, because systemizers do not see things in an overview, so they cannot provide a summary - but when they explain something they describe it as they experience it:
that is, they start at the beginning and go through to the end, without missing a step,
precision and completeness takes precedence over comprehension,
and this sequence may take a long time - too long for most people's attention span and absorptive ability.
*
This is why so many tecchy people are so bad at explaining things.
And they cannot help themselves, because they are simply transmitting the world as they see the world.
*
This is why formal teaching is limited and why apprenticeship is vital to the communication of skills.
Apprenticeship entails the master and the apprentice spending long periods of time working together for several years; and in these circumstances even the worst 'teacher' can pass on his skills to an eager student.
Apprenticeship is how traditional societies overcome the fact - the fact intrinsic to some types of expertise - that the people whose skills are most vital are often among the worst teachers.
*
Tuesday 27 March 2012
Leftist elites: no longer self-serving, now demonically insane
*
I think it is crucial to recognize that Leftist elites are no longer corruptly self-serving (yes in detail - but not overall); but with the advent and development of political correctness the Left became insane - an insanity of demonic energy and destructiveness (and, as such, consistent with the nihilism at the heart of the Left).
So the Left now sacrifice their own children's lives and well being to their crusades - they cover up injustices and crimes done against them.
Despite supposed 'pacifism' the Left tries to subvert, physically-attacks, lightly-wounds, and makes implacable enemies of nation after nation, culture after culture - until they are now ringed by foes.
The Left invites foes to dwell among them, and erects special legal protections for their foes, so that they cannot defend against these foes.
Yes - the Left is insane, destructively, nihilistically insane - in an advanced form of evil psychosis.
*
I think it is crucial to recognize that Leftist elites are no longer corruptly self-serving (yes in detail - but not overall); but with the advent and development of political correctness the Left became insane - an insanity of demonic energy and destructiveness (and, as such, consistent with the nihilism at the heart of the Left).
So the Left now sacrifice their own children's lives and well being to their crusades - they cover up injustices and crimes done against them.
Despite supposed 'pacifism' the Left tries to subvert, physically-attacks, lightly-wounds, and makes implacable enemies of nation after nation, culture after culture - until they are now ringed by foes.
The Left invites foes to dwell among them, and erects special legal protections for their foes, so that they cannot defend against these foes.
Yes - the Left is insane, destructively, nihilistically insane - in an advanced form of evil psychosis.
*
Monday 26 March 2012
Commenting suspended, perhaps permanently - media withdrawal strategy
*
Although this blog seems to be read by plenty of people, and the quality of comments has been really excellent (for example, Thought Prison was greatly helped by the comments from this blog, for which I am grateful); the number of comments is at such a low level (no doubt because the fact that I reject so many comments is, understandably, off-putting) - that as things stand now, the time I spend in checking for comments, and moderating them, is grossly disproportionate - and is in itself induces a bad - excessively web-oriented - state of mind.
*
Indeed, there are a few commenters who have become pen-friends - so that is a measure of how much comments are valued.
However, for reasons described below, the necessary process of monitoring and dealing with comments is having a destructive effect on daily life.
*
Although I have been trying to reduce my exposure to media for a couple of years, this isn't working - the reduction has not been effective in breaking free from the media influence.
Instead, I recurrently fall into the trap of trying to get at the truth behind the mass media by 'clever' (or wise) web usage - yet, all the time the mass media are setting the agenda and monopolizing my attention.
In some ways, I am now more in thrall to the media than I was when I was an uncritical consumer of it; since I waste time so much time and expend to much energy in thinking about how to outwit it.
*
Current mainstream media are probably not much different than they have been for some while; but somehow I find that the past year has revealed an attitude so utterly demonic in its calculated destructiveness, in its manipulation with the goal of actively promoting evils, that it is now clear that engagement with the media and its agenda is just so much time spent debating with The Mouth of Sauron or Wormtongue (or, more likely, Bill Ferney or Ted Sandyman).
Once you recognize who is behind the scenes, pulling the strings, then you must be cautious about exposing yourself to their agenda.
*
Charles Williams used to reiterate that the devil is inaccurate; yet if we use the (favoured) media to fight the (mass) media, we too are being inaccurate - since our sources are inaccurate - and so we help the devil in spreading lies.
The actual activity of engagement is itself harmful - since even (local, temporary) success in out-arguing or detection in lies leads to little more than pride in myself (the worst of sins), and the delusion that a bit more engagement and more effort of mine in this direction will 'make a difference'.
A common version of this delusion is that traditional, reactionary Christians are making progress, are a rising tide, a coming thing...
*
At any rate I perceive that my avoidance of media matters will need to be more active and complete, and that my disbelief/ disregard of the media line on anything at all must be as total as I can make it.
As well as making blogging less of an obsession, this entails having no opinions on matters about which the sources are from the media; but holding to eternal truths, common sense and direct experience as far as possible.
*
Although this blog seems to be read by plenty of people, and the quality of comments has been really excellent (for example, Thought Prison was greatly helped by the comments from this blog, for which I am grateful); the number of comments is at such a low level (no doubt because the fact that I reject so many comments is, understandably, off-putting) - that as things stand now, the time I spend in checking for comments, and moderating them, is grossly disproportionate - and is in itself induces a bad - excessively web-oriented - state of mind.
*
Indeed, there are a few commenters who have become pen-friends - so that is a measure of how much comments are valued.
However, for reasons described below, the necessary process of monitoring and dealing with comments is having a destructive effect on daily life.
*
Although I have been trying to reduce my exposure to media for a couple of years, this isn't working - the reduction has not been effective in breaking free from the media influence.
Instead, I recurrently fall into the trap of trying to get at the truth behind the mass media by 'clever' (or wise) web usage - yet, all the time the mass media are setting the agenda and monopolizing my attention.
In some ways, I am now more in thrall to the media than I was when I was an uncritical consumer of it; since I waste time so much time and expend to much energy in thinking about how to outwit it.
*
Current mainstream media are probably not much different than they have been for some while; but somehow I find that the past year has revealed an attitude so utterly demonic in its calculated destructiveness, in its manipulation with the goal of actively promoting evils, that it is now clear that engagement with the media and its agenda is just so much time spent debating with The Mouth of Sauron or Wormtongue (or, more likely, Bill Ferney or Ted Sandyman).
Once you recognize who is behind the scenes, pulling the strings, then you must be cautious about exposing yourself to their agenda.
*
Charles Williams used to reiterate that the devil is inaccurate; yet if we use the (favoured) media to fight the (mass) media, we too are being inaccurate - since our sources are inaccurate - and so we help the devil in spreading lies.
The actual activity of engagement is itself harmful - since even (local, temporary) success in out-arguing or detection in lies leads to little more than pride in myself (the worst of sins), and the delusion that a bit more engagement and more effort of mine in this direction will 'make a difference'.
A common version of this delusion is that traditional, reactionary Christians are making progress, are a rising tide, a coming thing...
*
At any rate I perceive that my avoidance of media matters will need to be more active and complete, and that my disbelief/ disregard of the media line on anything at all must be as total as I can make it.
As well as making blogging less of an obsession, this entails having no opinions on matters about which the sources are from the media; but holding to eternal truths, common sense and direct experience as far as possible.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)