*
Because it was the most Christian civilisation over many generations (about a thousand years).
*
The above is the answer.
If you are not a Christian, presumably you would not agree that this was the greatest civilisation - since you are looking for completely different attainments (military success, peace, comfort, artistic or philosophical attainment - or whatever it might be).
If you do not understand Christianity (e.g. if you are not yourself a Christian), you would presumably disagree.
Or, if your understanding of Christianity is significantly different from how Christianity understood itself for the first half of its existence, then you would presumably disagree.
*
Or maybe you don't know anything about the subject of Byzantium - like most people.
Or maybe you have read only/ mostly secular historians on the subject of Byzantium, or an account actively hostile to Christianity (this was my situation into just a few years ago)...
...then you would probably be ignorant of the Christian-centred perspective on the civilisation, and unable to make an informed judgement on the matter.
*
But for someone with a broadly 'catholic' understanding of Christianity; then Byzantium was the apex of what man has achieved so far - and almost certainly the apex of what he ever shall achieve (on earth, in this life).
*
Sunday 10 June 2012
Saturday 9 June 2012
The self-destroying nature of Leftism is no cause for complacency among Christians
*
The fact that the world view of atheism, Leftism, political correctness is self-destroying is often regarded in a positive fashion by the political Right, as if their preferred party were 'on the side of history' and they merely have to wait...
So reactionaries often wish for the self-destruction of the Left to come sooner rather than later - in other words, they anticipate with pleasure that the Left will soon become so powerful that the Left will soon destroy itself.
*
It is quite correct that when the Left collapses, when the Left destroys-itself, then the Right will take-over - this is correct, but which Right?
My point is that if the logic of Leftism is carried through to its self-destroying end, then it is not likely that Christianity would step-in and take-over.
Secular Right wingers might look forward to a brief period of rulership, yet they too are a self-destroying ideology.
Which leaves only the religious Right among whom Christians are not the strongest nor more rapidly growing major religion.
*
But, at a deeper level, to wish for the self-destruction of the Left is to wish for the triumph of evil - and to hope that from triumphant evil will come Good.
If evil is destroyed by Good, then Good may emerge from the chaos - but if evil is so dominant in the world that it destroys itself, i.e. evil destroys 'the system' by which evil is maintained, and chaos ensues, then where will Good come-from?
How likely is it that a society so thoroughly corrupted that it killed itself, would be re-born purified? Where is purity when corruption is everywhere?
*
Good could only come from outside 'the system', and for that we must pray - but if Good does come from outside, then why hope for the Left to triumph such that it will pull the social edifice down upon itself?
If we hope to be rescued by external intervention after collapse and evil triumphant, then why not hope to be rescued before collapse?
Why not hope to defeat evil before it triumphs?
*
No, we must not hope for the self-annihilating triumph of the Left in expectation that on the other side of evil chaos will lie our salvation.
We must not hope that the parasite will kill its host; must not wish for the cancer of Leftism to grow so large and metastasise so widely as to overwhelm the organism upon which the malignancy depends for sustenance.
Surely, to hope for the advance of evil - for whatever supposed long-term benefit - is oneself to be evil?
We must instead hope for the defeat of evil by Good, of the Left by Christianity, before it is too late.
*
(Although the 'defeat' of evil by Good is always partial and temporary in this world, nonetheless, that is what we must hope for.)
***
Note added: I think that the confusion arises, by which Christians find themselves hoping for the triumph of evil, as a consequences of failing to distinguish ultimate purposive evil from the proximate servants of evil.
At the level of people who serve evil, their triumph may indeed lead to their own downfall - so that an evil leader may have their own power and happiness destroyed as a result of their own evil.
Yet this is just another triumph for that purposive evil which lies behind things. For purposive evil, the destruction of its own servants is simply part of the plan - the aim is that human souls are used then tormented, some sooner, some later.
For purposive evil, all destruction is to its credit. All the servants of evil have some Good in them - for example the faithful servant of evil is at least faithful, therefore their destruction is always a satisfaction to purposive evil.
The unseen warfare, the ultimate spiritual conflict of this world, is not between humans. Humans may be strategic warriors on the side of Good, or tactical dupes on the side of evil.
We are servants, but servants that can and must chose their master.
*
The fact that the world view of atheism, Leftism, political correctness is self-destroying is often regarded in a positive fashion by the political Right, as if their preferred party were 'on the side of history' and they merely have to wait...
So reactionaries often wish for the self-destruction of the Left to come sooner rather than later - in other words, they anticipate with pleasure that the Left will soon become so powerful that the Left will soon destroy itself.
*
It is quite correct that when the Left collapses, when the Left destroys-itself, then the Right will take-over - this is correct, but which Right?
My point is that if the logic of Leftism is carried through to its self-destroying end, then it is not likely that Christianity would step-in and take-over.
Secular Right wingers might look forward to a brief period of rulership, yet they too are a self-destroying ideology.
Which leaves only the religious Right among whom Christians are not the strongest nor more rapidly growing major religion.
*
But, at a deeper level, to wish for the self-destruction of the Left is to wish for the triumph of evil - and to hope that from triumphant evil will come Good.
If evil is destroyed by Good, then Good may emerge from the chaos - but if evil is so dominant in the world that it destroys itself, i.e. evil destroys 'the system' by which evil is maintained, and chaos ensues, then where will Good come-from?
How likely is it that a society so thoroughly corrupted that it killed itself, would be re-born purified? Where is purity when corruption is everywhere?
*
Good could only come from outside 'the system', and for that we must pray - but if Good does come from outside, then why hope for the Left to triumph such that it will pull the social edifice down upon itself?
If we hope to be rescued by external intervention after collapse and evil triumphant, then why not hope to be rescued before collapse?
Why not hope to defeat evil before it triumphs?
*
No, we must not hope for the self-annihilating triumph of the Left in expectation that on the other side of evil chaos will lie our salvation.
We must not hope that the parasite will kill its host; must not wish for the cancer of Leftism to grow so large and metastasise so widely as to overwhelm the organism upon which the malignancy depends for sustenance.
Surely, to hope for the advance of evil - for whatever supposed long-term benefit - is oneself to be evil?
We must instead hope for the defeat of evil by Good, of the Left by Christianity, before it is too late.
*
(Although the 'defeat' of evil by Good is always partial and temporary in this world, nonetheless, that is what we must hope for.)
***
Note added: I think that the confusion arises, by which Christians find themselves hoping for the triumph of evil, as a consequences of failing to distinguish ultimate purposive evil from the proximate servants of evil.
At the level of people who serve evil, their triumph may indeed lead to their own downfall - so that an evil leader may have their own power and happiness destroyed as a result of their own evil.
Yet this is just another triumph for that purposive evil which lies behind things. For purposive evil, the destruction of its own servants is simply part of the plan - the aim is that human souls are used then tormented, some sooner, some later.
For purposive evil, all destruction is to its credit. All the servants of evil have some Good in them - for example the faithful servant of evil is at least faithful, therefore their destruction is always a satisfaction to purposive evil.
The unseen warfare, the ultimate spiritual conflict of this world, is not between humans. Humans may be strategic warriors on the side of Good, or tactical dupes on the side of evil.
We are servants, but servants that can and must chose their master.
*
Friday 8 June 2012
Christianity and high IQ
*
My all-time, most-often-hit post from this blog (with about 6500 page views) is a journalistic-style article I published in the Mensa magazine on the disadvantages of high IQ
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/disadvantages-of-high-iq.html
This is interesting for several reasons: one is that I would not have predicted this would be the most popular thing I wrote; another is that the topic of IQ is apparently one of considerable general interest.
*
The three big disadvantages of high IQ which I listed were atheism, socialism and low fertility.
In a nutshell, I regard the modern high IQ elite member as a relatively recent product of rapid natural selection (some several or many hundreds of years) - of fast adaptation to the powerful selection pressure of a type of agrarian society - and like almost all examples of rapidly evolved adaptations this is achieved at a cost in pathology.
There are levels of complexity of evidence and analysis to debate - but I am pretty sure that there is an underlying causal relationship behind these phenomena, something I also tried to capture in the Clever Silly concept - that the highly intelligent lack Common Sense.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html
Atheism, socialism, low fertility are aspects of a psychological pathology which was a by-product of rapid evolution of high intelligence.
(Naturally, these are products of some underlying disorder which would be expressed differently in different environments; and naturally a.s.lf are quantitative amplifications of pre-existing traits - they are not completely new traits. Rapid adaptation can only amplify what already exists.)
*
Since we currently live in a society dominated by high IQ atheist, leftists who are uninterested-by and hostile-to marriage, families and children - and since our public discourse is professional and essentially consists of the mass media backed by the systems of law, education and government - we are in the historically and geographically incredible position that ordinary common sense and personal experience have been all-but abolished.
Our world is abstract and theoretical - and this applies not only to the high IQ elite, but pretty much across the board, affecting nearly everybody.
So that Christianity - and traditional, orthodox supernaturalist religion of any kind - now strikes many people as not so much false as merely bizarre and foolish.
*
This applies even to, perhaps most of all to, the academic work of scholars, philosophers, scientists and the like. Anti-Christianity among these groups often boils down to the plain fact that they cannot take Christianity seriously, for them it is not even wrong, but simply crazy or manipulative.
Look hard at the arguments of mainstream modern cultural intellectuals building upon centuries of this tradition: they have the built-in and foundational assumption that obviously Christianity is untrue - and therefore anything which might tend to lead to acknowledgement of Christianity is also obviously untrue... and this is the position from which they begin.
Their reasoning may lead almost-anywhere except to Christianity, their conclusions might be almost anything except Christianity.
I speak from decades of experience inside this abstract theoretical and anti-Christian perspective.
*
So we, in this society, are living in a bubble of discourse qualitatively distinct from that of any other society in history and in about half the contemporary world - a bubble in which religion has been demoted from being the most important thing in life to being regarded a ludicrous farrago of made-up stuff: literally 'beneath contempt'.
Since all common sensical people have always been and still are religious, and since all children are spontaneously religious - this represents an extraordinary state of affairs.
*
As a society we have created a swirling bubble of abstract theories we term public discourse, within which we have trapped ourselves so that it sometimes seems that nothing we feel or experience can ever break us free.
As those who man the continual process of bubble production - intellectuals are most deeply implicated.
But it is worth remembering that the bubble of abstract theory standing between us and reality is a vastly resource-consuming phenomenon - sustainable only by the kind of scientific, technological and economic production which the bubble itself destroys by its denial of reality.
This is the nature of evil, characteristic of evil - evil is destructive, negative, nihilistic: it is anti-Good which means anti-real.
*
The atheist, leftist, anti-marriage/family/children perspective of modernity is essentially evil, yet of course it does contain Good - for example, it values kindness and hates suffering.
Yet the evil behind secularism would eventually destroy even those Goods, leaving immediate pleasure as the only value, and secularism would become cruel and sadistic with collapse into a universal war of each against all - which if carried-through to completion and the triumph of darkness (in this world) would ultimately lead to a single victor, who then killed himself...
*
Thus our abstract theoretical world - this creation of the Clever Silly high IQ and anti-Christian elites - is not working to impose an alternative reality, it is un-reality: it denies even itself, it operates to destroy even itself.
*
My all-time, most-often-hit post from this blog (with about 6500 page views) is a journalistic-style article I published in the Mensa magazine on the disadvantages of high IQ
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/disadvantages-of-high-iq.html
This is interesting for several reasons: one is that I would not have predicted this would be the most popular thing I wrote; another is that the topic of IQ is apparently one of considerable general interest.
*
The three big disadvantages of high IQ which I listed were atheism, socialism and low fertility.
In a nutshell, I regard the modern high IQ elite member as a relatively recent product of rapid natural selection (some several or many hundreds of years) - of fast adaptation to the powerful selection pressure of a type of agrarian society - and like almost all examples of rapidly evolved adaptations this is achieved at a cost in pathology.
There are levels of complexity of evidence and analysis to debate - but I am pretty sure that there is an underlying causal relationship behind these phenomena, something I also tried to capture in the Clever Silly concept - that the highly intelligent lack Common Sense.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html
Atheism, socialism, low fertility are aspects of a psychological pathology which was a by-product of rapid evolution of high intelligence.
(Naturally, these are products of some underlying disorder which would be expressed differently in different environments; and naturally a.s.lf are quantitative amplifications of pre-existing traits - they are not completely new traits. Rapid adaptation can only amplify what already exists.)
*
Since we currently live in a society dominated by high IQ atheist, leftists who are uninterested-by and hostile-to marriage, families and children - and since our public discourse is professional and essentially consists of the mass media backed by the systems of law, education and government - we are in the historically and geographically incredible position that ordinary common sense and personal experience have been all-but abolished.
Our world is abstract and theoretical - and this applies not only to the high IQ elite, but pretty much across the board, affecting nearly everybody.
So that Christianity - and traditional, orthodox supernaturalist religion of any kind - now strikes many people as not so much false as merely bizarre and foolish.
*
This applies even to, perhaps most of all to, the academic work of scholars, philosophers, scientists and the like. Anti-Christianity among these groups often boils down to the plain fact that they cannot take Christianity seriously, for them it is not even wrong, but simply crazy or manipulative.
Look hard at the arguments of mainstream modern cultural intellectuals building upon centuries of this tradition: they have the built-in and foundational assumption that obviously Christianity is untrue - and therefore anything which might tend to lead to acknowledgement of Christianity is also obviously untrue... and this is the position from which they begin.
Their reasoning may lead almost-anywhere except to Christianity, their conclusions might be almost anything except Christianity.
I speak from decades of experience inside this abstract theoretical and anti-Christian perspective.
*
So we, in this society, are living in a bubble of discourse qualitatively distinct from that of any other society in history and in about half the contemporary world - a bubble in which religion has been demoted from being the most important thing in life to being regarded a ludicrous farrago of made-up stuff: literally 'beneath contempt'.
Since all common sensical people have always been and still are religious, and since all children are spontaneously religious - this represents an extraordinary state of affairs.
*
As a society we have created a swirling bubble of abstract theories we term public discourse, within which we have trapped ourselves so that it sometimes seems that nothing we feel or experience can ever break us free.
As those who man the continual process of bubble production - intellectuals are most deeply implicated.
But it is worth remembering that the bubble of abstract theory standing between us and reality is a vastly resource-consuming phenomenon - sustainable only by the kind of scientific, technological and economic production which the bubble itself destroys by its denial of reality.
This is the nature of evil, characteristic of evil - evil is destructive, negative, nihilistic: it is anti-Good which means anti-real.
*
The atheist, leftist, anti-marriage/family/children perspective of modernity is essentially evil, yet of course it does contain Good - for example, it values kindness and hates suffering.
Yet the evil behind secularism would eventually destroy even those Goods, leaving immediate pleasure as the only value, and secularism would become cruel and sadistic with collapse into a universal war of each against all - which if carried-through to completion and the triumph of darkness (in this world) would ultimately lead to a single victor, who then killed himself...
*
Thus our abstract theoretical world - this creation of the Clever Silly high IQ and anti-Christian elites - is not working to impose an alternative reality, it is un-reality: it denies even itself, it operates to destroy even itself.
*
Thursday 7 June 2012
Italian fluency and German effort: Rossini and Weber
*
Rossini and Weber are both second rank composers who are both firmly in the operatic and orchestral repertoire - and both are on the 'light' side of classical music. Both are, let's say, about equal in quality.
I very much like them both. But which do I prefer? The answer is Weber.
Rossini is probably a better composer, in the sense that he is effortlessly fluent, a fount of melody, a sparkling orchestrator. He also wrote the one genuinely funny opera (Barber of Seville).
By contrast there is something lumbering about Weber, his music is all angles and effort. His one repertory opera - Der Freischutz - is the best romantic opera in the German tradition (which means it is the best of all) - and yet it contains no really first rate arias.
And yet. There is something fresh, genuine and earnest about Weber - something clean and honest - that is beyond Rossini.
In Rossini there is no friction - it all slides-past like greased lightning!
I find that I value Weber for the fact that he contains so much resistance which he must then effortfully overcome.
In the end, it is a temperamental thing: the two great European characters - Latin and Northern. My preference is firmly for the Nordic over the Mediterranean; for the forest over the beach. I am somewhat jealous, somewhat resentful of the Southern ease and comfort and style - but it does seem rather shallow, rather glib.
*
Rossini and Weber are both second rank composers who are both firmly in the operatic and orchestral repertoire - and both are on the 'light' side of classical music. Both are, let's say, about equal in quality.
I very much like them both. But which do I prefer? The answer is Weber.
Rossini is probably a better composer, in the sense that he is effortlessly fluent, a fount of melody, a sparkling orchestrator. He also wrote the one genuinely funny opera (Barber of Seville).
By contrast there is something lumbering about Weber, his music is all angles and effort. His one repertory opera - Der Freischutz - is the best romantic opera in the German tradition (which means it is the best of all) - and yet it contains no really first rate arias.
And yet. There is something fresh, genuine and earnest about Weber - something clean and honest - that is beyond Rossini.
In Rossini there is no friction - it all slides-past like greased lightning!
I find that I value Weber for the fact that he contains so much resistance which he must then effortfully overcome.
In the end, it is a temperamental thing: the two great European characters - Latin and Northern. My preference is firmly for the Nordic over the Mediterranean; for the forest over the beach. I am somewhat jealous, somewhat resentful of the Southern ease and comfort and style - but it does seem rather shallow, rather glib.
*
Why must we love our neighbours? Why must we forgive?
*
Because we are in it together.
To fail to love and to fail to forgive are part of the same thing, which is rejection of reality - the reality that we are called-upon to choose salvation and not just for ourselves; but by participating in the web of love, to accept the gift for mankind.
To love and to forgive is precisely this participation in active and consenting aspects.
(Always remembering that love of neighbour must be second or subordinate to love of God, which enables it; and forgiveness is an attribute of our own humility before God. Yet for many, perhaps most, love of God is attained via love of another, or some others - and the same for humility and forgiveness. The particular opens out into the general - seldom vice versa.)
*
Because we are in it together.
To fail to love and to fail to forgive are part of the same thing, which is rejection of reality - the reality that we are called-upon to choose salvation and not just for ourselves; but by participating in the web of love, to accept the gift for mankind.
To love and to forgive is precisely this participation in active and consenting aspects.
(Always remembering that love of neighbour must be second or subordinate to love of God, which enables it; and forgiveness is an attribute of our own humility before God. Yet for many, perhaps most, love of God is attained via love of another, or some others - and the same for humility and forgiveness. The particular opens out into the general - seldom vice versa.)
*
Wednesday 6 June 2012
National leadership of honesty and integrity is still possible...
*
My example is the England cricket coach, Andy Flower.
(Ex-blogger Mencius Moldbug used in his heyday to rhapsodise over the leadership qualities of some bloke apparently called Steve Jobs - but here I use a more relevant and recognisable example...)
I have regarded Andy Flower as the best example of a real leader since I wrote this post on my obscure cricket blog:
http://the-doosra.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/i-am-eating-humble-pie.html
But this was confirmed yesterday by this talk Flower gave to journalists:
*
Either way, it is a measure of the sensitivity of the subject that Flower, the England coach, took it upon himself to come and speak to a section of the media and provide an in-depth explanation of the rationale behind the decision.
Flower, while at pains not to be seen to criticise officials at the ECB who have agreed the playing schedule, called the itinerary "incredibly heavy". He also reminded supporters that rotation was not a new thing - Andrew Strauss, the captain, was rested from a tour of Bangladesh in 2010 - and, while Flower declined to answer any questions about Kevin Pietersen, he did admit that the prospect of players choosing to specialise was an "ongoing issue with the schedules that we're being asked to undertake".
"We came into this series with one goal and that was to win the series," Flower said. "We've achieved that goal so our priorities do shift. I'm not intending to demean the importance of this Test but, since we won the series already, our priority on the Test front does now shift to the South Africa series. There is also a slight shift to the West Indies one-day series because that series stands at 0-0. We haven't won that series, we've won this one. Part of our decision making is based around those reasons.
"If it had been 1-1 going into this third Test, Jimmy would have played. He is not badly injured and he could play this Test if we wanted him to. But it's 2-0 and we've won the series already.
"The second point I would make is that the days of us playing our players until they are either worn down significantly, or snap physically or mentally, are over. We think it our responsibility to manage things better than that. It is our duty to make decisions in their interests and the interests of the team. In the past we tended to play the fast bowlers until they were either bowling so poorly we had to leave them out, or they break down. And that doesn't make sense to us.
"Would you enter your prize horse in every race through the year? You wouldn't. You would target the races you want to win. We've won this race already. Would you play your most valuable pitcher in every single game in a baseball season? No you wouldn't. In fact, you don't even see them play full games. You pull them out of games because physically it makes sense to do so. Eventually their shoulder or their elbow would go. Does Wayne Rooney play every game for Manchester United? No, he doesn't because he would break down if he tried to do so. The schedule is really busy, and that's why we have to make these decisions. It would be ridiculous if we expected our fast bowlers to play in every single game.
"These types of decisions are made for the good of the team but also they will extend the careers of bowlers like Anderson. Actually I think it's beneficial to him. I understand the reasons why he is disappointed but it is beneficial to him in the long run.
"My third point is we have to try to and grow our pool of fast bowlers that are available to the England side. You would have seen through the Ashes in Australia that it wasn't the same attack that was used throughout that series. When we left Steven Finn out and when Stuart Broad was injured, the guys who came in excelled. Over the next couple of years the schedule is incredibly heavy. It is not only going to be Anderson, Broad and Bresnan who are going to be our bowlers over the next couple of years. It would be crazy and naive to think so. We are going to use other fast bowlers. It is part of growing our pool of fast bowlers.
"My fourth point is the possible replacement or replacements we use in this Test match are fine bowlers in their own right who have already performed very successfully in Test matches in England. I don't see it as devaluing this Test, I see it as a really exciting opportunity for us and for those watching the game. We are making this decision in the best interests of English cricket. We are not trying to overcomplicate, or devalue the game in any way. I perfectly understand why James Anderson is disappointed to be left out and I would be surprised if he felt any different. He is hungry to play. That's okay.
"He will be using this time to get his body in as good order as possible. He is carrying a couple of niggles and this is a chance to get rid of them. If it was 1-1 he would be playing, but it's not. We make decisions that make us stronger in the medium to long-term. Those are the reasons why we've made those decisions. Some people will disagree with them and that's fair enough. But I hope you can understand the logic behind those decisions."
Flower admitted that Broad may also be left out of the final XI "for similar reasons" and dismissed the idea that either he or Anderson would be selected with a view to improving their Test statistics. "We don't select people to get their Test tally up," Flower said. "We make decisions in the best interests of English cricket."
(The above transcript is taken from cricinfo.com)
*
I find it hard to express how impressed I was with this press conference, except that it is altogether typical of the man.
Here is a man who can make and take responsibility for tough decisions (he says 'we' speaking on behalf of the selectors); explaining why the decision is the best overall, while fully acknowledging that there are downsides, and not everybody will be happy about it.
*
But is it easier to have integrity and honesty in cricket than in national politics or as head of a corporation or a university?
I doubt it. Most cricket administrators are just as devious and weasel-like as the worst bureaucrats, the pressures are much the same - it is the quality of the individual which differs.
As far as I know, Flower has always been like that - and it is a major reason why he is the best national coach (just as he, somehow, made himself the best Test Match batsman in the world, statistically, despite the twin major disadvantages of 1. Playing for the worst team in the world, and 2. Keeping wicket).
(He was also personally and professionally courageous such as to make (with Henry Olonga - just the two of them) a public protest against the Mugabe regime during the cricket world cup in Zimbabwe - as a white Rhodesian, this was especially risky for Flower).
*
Respect and admiration.
Q: What could such a man in such a position do for a nation?
A: Almost anything.
*
My example is the England cricket coach, Andy Flower.
(Ex-blogger Mencius Moldbug used in his heyday to rhapsodise over the leadership qualities of some bloke apparently called Steve Jobs - but here I use a more relevant and recognisable example...)
I have regarded Andy Flower as the best example of a real leader since I wrote this post on my obscure cricket blog:
http://the-doosra.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/i-am-eating-humble-pie.html
But this was confirmed yesterday by this talk Flower gave to journalists:
*
Either way, it is a measure of the sensitivity of the subject that Flower, the England coach, took it upon himself to come and speak to a section of the media and provide an in-depth explanation of the rationale behind the decision.
Flower, while at pains not to be seen to criticise officials at the ECB who have agreed the playing schedule, called the itinerary "incredibly heavy". He also reminded supporters that rotation was not a new thing - Andrew Strauss, the captain, was rested from a tour of Bangladesh in 2010 - and, while Flower declined to answer any questions about Kevin Pietersen, he did admit that the prospect of players choosing to specialise was an "ongoing issue with the schedules that we're being asked to undertake".
"We came into this series with one goal and that was to win the series," Flower said. "We've achieved that goal so our priorities do shift. I'm not intending to demean the importance of this Test but, since we won the series already, our priority on the Test front does now shift to the South Africa series. There is also a slight shift to the West Indies one-day series because that series stands at 0-0. We haven't won that series, we've won this one. Part of our decision making is based around those reasons.
"If it had been 1-1 going into this third Test, Jimmy would have played. He is not badly injured and he could play this Test if we wanted him to. But it's 2-0 and we've won the series already.
"The second point I would make is that the days of us playing our players until they are either worn down significantly, or snap physically or mentally, are over. We think it our responsibility to manage things better than that. It is our duty to make decisions in their interests and the interests of the team. In the past we tended to play the fast bowlers until they were either bowling so poorly we had to leave them out, or they break down. And that doesn't make sense to us.
"Would you enter your prize horse in every race through the year? You wouldn't. You would target the races you want to win. We've won this race already. Would you play your most valuable pitcher in every single game in a baseball season? No you wouldn't. In fact, you don't even see them play full games. You pull them out of games because physically it makes sense to do so. Eventually their shoulder or their elbow would go. Does Wayne Rooney play every game for Manchester United? No, he doesn't because he would break down if he tried to do so. The schedule is really busy, and that's why we have to make these decisions. It would be ridiculous if we expected our fast bowlers to play in every single game.
"These types of decisions are made for the good of the team but also they will extend the careers of bowlers like Anderson. Actually I think it's beneficial to him. I understand the reasons why he is disappointed but it is beneficial to him in the long run.
"My third point is we have to try to and grow our pool of fast bowlers that are available to the England side. You would have seen through the Ashes in Australia that it wasn't the same attack that was used throughout that series. When we left Steven Finn out and when Stuart Broad was injured, the guys who came in excelled. Over the next couple of years the schedule is incredibly heavy. It is not only going to be Anderson, Broad and Bresnan who are going to be our bowlers over the next couple of years. It would be crazy and naive to think so. We are going to use other fast bowlers. It is part of growing our pool of fast bowlers.
"My fourth point is the possible replacement or replacements we use in this Test match are fine bowlers in their own right who have already performed very successfully in Test matches in England. I don't see it as devaluing this Test, I see it as a really exciting opportunity for us and for those watching the game. We are making this decision in the best interests of English cricket. We are not trying to overcomplicate, or devalue the game in any way. I perfectly understand why James Anderson is disappointed to be left out and I would be surprised if he felt any different. He is hungry to play. That's okay.
"He will be using this time to get his body in as good order as possible. He is carrying a couple of niggles and this is a chance to get rid of them. If it was 1-1 he would be playing, but it's not. We make decisions that make us stronger in the medium to long-term. Those are the reasons why we've made those decisions. Some people will disagree with them and that's fair enough. But I hope you can understand the logic behind those decisions."
Flower admitted that Broad may also be left out of the final XI "for similar reasons" and dismissed the idea that either he or Anderson would be selected with a view to improving their Test statistics. "We don't select people to get their Test tally up," Flower said. "We make decisions in the best interests of English cricket."
(The above transcript is taken from cricinfo.com)
*
I find it hard to express how impressed I was with this press conference, except that it is altogether typical of the man.
Here is a man who can make and take responsibility for tough decisions (he says 'we' speaking on behalf of the selectors); explaining why the decision is the best overall, while fully acknowledging that there are downsides, and not everybody will be happy about it.
*
But is it easier to have integrity and honesty in cricket than in national politics or as head of a corporation or a university?
I doubt it. Most cricket administrators are just as devious and weasel-like as the worst bureaucrats, the pressures are much the same - it is the quality of the individual which differs.
As far as I know, Flower has always been like that - and it is a major reason why he is the best national coach (just as he, somehow, made himself the best Test Match batsman in the world, statistically, despite the twin major disadvantages of 1. Playing for the worst team in the world, and 2. Keeping wicket).
(He was also personally and professionally courageous such as to make (with Henry Olonga - just the two of them) a public protest against the Mugabe regime during the cricket world cup in Zimbabwe - as a white Rhodesian, this was especially risky for Flower).
*
Respect and admiration.
Q: What could such a man in such a position do for a nation?
A: Almost anything.
*
What to do about corrupt institutions
*
(By corruption I mean an institution or person performing a function other than that which it ostensibly exists to perform. Taking bribes to do what the briber wants, rather than what ostensibly ought to be done, is an obvious example. But most modern corruption comes from the the State - and is coercive: institutions that ostensibly exist to educate, or heal, or administer justice are instead made by the State to perform political functions. So in the Soviet Union all powerful institutions were corrupt: they mostly performed political functions instead of their ostensible functions: hence very little got done in terms of, say, actual growing of food. The modern situation increasingly resembles that.)
*
What to do about corruption? Possibilities include reform, destroy and renew.
*
Destroy
The first decision is whether the institution is, on the whole, Good or bad; necessary or harmful.
Most modern institutions are, on the whole, evil and/ or harmful - the United Nations or the European Union, for example. So these should be destroyed, if possible. Any necessary functions are simply re-allocated to other institutions.
Obviously, it is exceptionally difficult to destroy evil and harmful institutions, because if these were not serving powerful interests then they would not still be existing.
Indeed, as a rule, the more evil and more harmful institutions are and yet existing, the more viciously and dishonestly they will be defended.
*
Reform
Reform doesn't work.
By the time things have reached the state that an institution can be described as corrupt, then corrupt is what it is.
Especially, large modern institutions cannot be reformed - they never have been reformed.
Let's just say reform is all-but impossible for institutions of any size or complexity or duration. Of course you can make changes and claim that these are refroms, but I am talking about the real world: after 'reform' is the institutions actually better at performing its ostensible function?
Shoving extra resources at a corrupt institution (in hope of reforming it) will strengthen its corruption, rather than reforming it. Entrenched and strengthened corruption has been the consequence of attempts to reform the state education system, the health services, and so on.
(Possible counter-examples of apparently successful reform will be seen to fall under the renew category. For a technical argument from systems theory proving the impossibility of reforming complex organizations - see http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/modernizing.html)
*
Renew
But if an institutions does valuable work, then that work must be continued.
The answer is renew: to set up a new institution - with new people - alongside; and as soon as it is functioning, than transfer the function (and also transfer the minority of honest and competent people).
Don't reform a corrupt government - renew it.
*
So, if there is a corrupt but necessary office or school. (Let's assume it can't be destroyed - although most corrupt offices and schools can and should be destroyed.)
What you must not do is try to reform the corrupt institutions while maintaining its functionality.
You should not try to repair the ship while it is still at sea. Repair is not-impossible in principle - but in practice a difficult repair cannot ever be done by a corrupt crew (who do not actually want to repair the ship).
*
Renew, don't reform.
Instead of trying to change to old corrupt office or school, you set-up a new and non-corrupt office or school next door/ nearby; with a new Head, who is in charge of a (mostly) new leadership team and with (mostly) new staff.
Then close-down the corrupt office or school.
(Any decent staff from the old office or school - if they can be identified by the Head of the new office or school can then be transferred to the new school.)
*
The take-home message is that when an institutions function is necessary or desirable yet that institutions is corrupt - then it should be renewed and not 'reformed'.
*
(Our society is corrupt, and it cannot be reformed - but only renewed. The Head and leaders must be replaced. Either 1. by the miracle (and it would be a miracle - which is not to say it is impossible) of them being 'born again' and becoming different people; or 2. by physically being replaced with other personnel. If no new and non-corrupt personnel are available from within the institution, then they would have to come from outside it - from 'abroad'.)
*
(By corruption I mean an institution or person performing a function other than that which it ostensibly exists to perform. Taking bribes to do what the briber wants, rather than what ostensibly ought to be done, is an obvious example. But most modern corruption comes from the the State - and is coercive: institutions that ostensibly exist to educate, or heal, or administer justice are instead made by the State to perform political functions. So in the Soviet Union all powerful institutions were corrupt: they mostly performed political functions instead of their ostensible functions: hence very little got done in terms of, say, actual growing of food. The modern situation increasingly resembles that.)
*
What to do about corruption? Possibilities include reform, destroy and renew.
*
Destroy
The first decision is whether the institution is, on the whole, Good or bad; necessary or harmful.
Most modern institutions are, on the whole, evil and/ or harmful - the United Nations or the European Union, for example. So these should be destroyed, if possible. Any necessary functions are simply re-allocated to other institutions.
Obviously, it is exceptionally difficult to destroy evil and harmful institutions, because if these were not serving powerful interests then they would not still be existing.
Indeed, as a rule, the more evil and more harmful institutions are and yet existing, the more viciously and dishonestly they will be defended.
*
Reform
Reform doesn't work.
By the time things have reached the state that an institution can be described as corrupt, then corrupt is what it is.
Especially, large modern institutions cannot be reformed - they never have been reformed.
Let's just say reform is all-but impossible for institutions of any size or complexity or duration. Of course you can make changes and claim that these are refroms, but I am talking about the real world: after 'reform' is the institutions actually better at performing its ostensible function?
Shoving extra resources at a corrupt institution (in hope of reforming it) will strengthen its corruption, rather than reforming it. Entrenched and strengthened corruption has been the consequence of attempts to reform the state education system, the health services, and so on.
(Possible counter-examples of apparently successful reform will be seen to fall under the renew category. For a technical argument from systems theory proving the impossibility of reforming complex organizations - see http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/modernizing.html)
*
Renew
But if an institutions does valuable work, then that work must be continued.
The answer is renew: to set up a new institution - with new people - alongside; and as soon as it is functioning, than transfer the function (and also transfer the minority of honest and competent people).
Don't reform a corrupt government - renew it.
*
So, if there is a corrupt but necessary office or school. (Let's assume it can't be destroyed - although most corrupt offices and schools can and should be destroyed.)
What you must not do is try to reform the corrupt institutions while maintaining its functionality.
You should not try to repair the ship while it is still at sea. Repair is not-impossible in principle - but in practice a difficult repair cannot ever be done by a corrupt crew (who do not actually want to repair the ship).
*
Renew, don't reform.
Instead of trying to change to old corrupt office or school, you set-up a new and non-corrupt office or school next door/ nearby; with a new Head, who is in charge of a (mostly) new leadership team and with (mostly) new staff.
Then close-down the corrupt office or school.
(Any decent staff from the old office or school - if they can be identified by the Head of the new office or school can then be transferred to the new school.)
*
The take-home message is that when an institutions function is necessary or desirable yet that institutions is corrupt - then it should be renewed and not 'reformed'.
*
(Our society is corrupt, and it cannot be reformed - but only renewed. The Head and leaders must be replaced. Either 1. by the miracle (and it would be a miracle - which is not to say it is impossible) of them being 'born again' and becoming different people; or 2. by physically being replaced with other personnel. If no new and non-corrupt personnel are available from within the institution, then they would have to come from outside it - from 'abroad'.)
*
Saturday 2 June 2012
Friday 1 June 2012
The imagined ideal church - as a way of evaluating churches
*
One of the ways in which I evaluate things is by imagining them as real, and seeing how I like it. As a thought experiment.
Sometimes I can do this quite vividly, and reach fairly firm conclusions, especially negative ones - but also positive. Indeed, sometimes this method makes matters crystal clear for the first time.
And sometimes authors do this for me - that it, they put down on paper, explicitly, their ideal imagined state of affairs - and then I find either that I am drawn towards it, or repelled by it.
*
So, for example, I have often blogged (as recently as yesterday) ideal imagined versions of Eastern Orthodoxy, which I find extremely attractive; likewise (albeit at a lower level) idealised version of Anglican worship - the early morning spoken Eucharistic service, the perfected evensong (with music of the kind I love, but not too much of it).
And it was through not being much attracted by (even) the ideal versions of Latin church (such as I read in Belloc, or John Senior) that I found myself somewhat unwilling (at least, at the moment) to become a Roman Catholic.
*
And many years ago, it was a passage in Radicals and the Future of the Church (1989) by Don Cupitt (a famous and influential Anglican teacher, theologian and media figure) that finally and irrevocably made clear to me that Liberal Christianity was bogus, bankrupt and repellent.
Here Cupitt describes his ideal future church:
Sacraments, however, there will be. The church will exist in two states, gathered and dispersed.
Gathered and become visible, the church will coincide with Christ. Dispersed and invisible, she will coincide with humanity at large.
*
The church's gatherings will take place perhaps at noon on Sundays, or - in some cities - on Thursdays at the end of the working day. The historic buildings will still be in use.
The gathering will consist of a common meal, taken seated at table. Each congregation's elected officers will be a group of deacons.
One of them will open the meal by standing, banging for attention, and breaking a bread roll, saying: 'the body of Christ', a formula understood to mean that the church now gathered in company is the risen Christ.
Noise then breaks out.
*
The meal is simple, like a War on Want lunch. Baskets of fresh bread rolls, cheese tomatoes, apples.
*
During the meal church business is transacted, items being introduced by the secretaries of the various divisions. Tasks are allocated.
The general understanding is that each enrolled member of the church should attend the meal weekly, and each week should undertake some small task as his or her personal 'liturgy', or item of service.
The rhythm is that week by week there is systole and diastole; you come in and are sent out.
*
The chief divisions are Study (courses, evening classes, groups), Training (personal counselling, meditation, yoga), Art (music, drama, the visual arts) and Social Action (including local branches of human rights groups, twinning relationships with overseas congregations, and political action)...
...And so on.
**
The remarkable thing is that it took Don Cupitt another 20 years to leave (even) the Church of England - despite that his views on the ideal kind of 'Christianity' are now pretty mainstream among the mass middling majority of Anglicans, Catholics, and Nonconformists...
At any rate, Cupitt performed for me the valuable service of stating exactly where Liberal Christianity was trending; such that I could see whether, or not, I liked the destination.
*
One of the ways in which I evaluate things is by imagining them as real, and seeing how I like it. As a thought experiment.
Sometimes I can do this quite vividly, and reach fairly firm conclusions, especially negative ones - but also positive. Indeed, sometimes this method makes matters crystal clear for the first time.
And sometimes authors do this for me - that it, they put down on paper, explicitly, their ideal imagined state of affairs - and then I find either that I am drawn towards it, or repelled by it.
*
So, for example, I have often blogged (as recently as yesterday) ideal imagined versions of Eastern Orthodoxy, which I find extremely attractive; likewise (albeit at a lower level) idealised version of Anglican worship - the early morning spoken Eucharistic service, the perfected evensong (with music of the kind I love, but not too much of it).
And it was through not being much attracted by (even) the ideal versions of Latin church (such as I read in Belloc, or John Senior) that I found myself somewhat unwilling (at least, at the moment) to become a Roman Catholic.
*
And many years ago, it was a passage in Radicals and the Future of the Church (1989) by Don Cupitt (a famous and influential Anglican teacher, theologian and media figure) that finally and irrevocably made clear to me that Liberal Christianity was bogus, bankrupt and repellent.
Here Cupitt describes his ideal future church:
Sacraments, however, there will be. The church will exist in two states, gathered and dispersed.
Gathered and become visible, the church will coincide with Christ. Dispersed and invisible, she will coincide with humanity at large.
*
The church's gatherings will take place perhaps at noon on Sundays, or - in some cities - on Thursdays at the end of the working day. The historic buildings will still be in use.
The gathering will consist of a common meal, taken seated at table. Each congregation's elected officers will be a group of deacons.
One of them will open the meal by standing, banging for attention, and breaking a bread roll, saying: 'the body of Christ', a formula understood to mean that the church now gathered in company is the risen Christ.
Noise then breaks out.
*
The meal is simple, like a War on Want lunch. Baskets of fresh bread rolls, cheese tomatoes, apples.
*
During the meal church business is transacted, items being introduced by the secretaries of the various divisions. Tasks are allocated.
The general understanding is that each enrolled member of the church should attend the meal weekly, and each week should undertake some small task as his or her personal 'liturgy', or item of service.
The rhythm is that week by week there is systole and diastole; you come in and are sent out.
*
The chief divisions are Study (courses, evening classes, groups), Training (personal counselling, meditation, yoga), Art (music, drama, the visual arts) and Social Action (including local branches of human rights groups, twinning relationships with overseas congregations, and political action)...
...And so on.
**
The remarkable thing is that it took Don Cupitt another 20 years to leave (even) the Church of England - despite that his views on the ideal kind of 'Christianity' are now pretty mainstream among the mass middling majority of Anglicans, Catholics, and Nonconformists...
At any rate, Cupitt performed for me the valuable service of stating exactly where Liberal Christianity was trending; such that I could see whether, or not, I liked the destination.
*
Thursday 31 May 2012
Difference between Western and Eastern Catholic Church - Robert Byron
*
From Robert Byron - The Byzantine Achievement, 1929
*
The psychological difference between the two Churches lies at bottom in their temporal outlook.
To the Greek, who by nature lives entirely in the present, the conception of future resurrection and future afterlife is obscure. To the Roman it is as clear as his own hand.
The result is that while, for the Roman, the whole impulse of religion is in essence eschatological, woven with the idea of post-human progression, for the Greek it is derived from the desire to seek transfiguration, not in the future, but the present.
The Roman, in this life, is concentrated on the problems of sin and grace: his eyes are fixed on the below; the other world, though parent of his activity, is far off.
For the Greek it is here. He lives in two worlds at once, and his eyes are on the upper of them; the Eucharist is not so much a means of grace as 'a medicine of immortality'.
While in Roman opinion, God became man that man's sins might be forgiven with a view to future immortality, in Greek it was that his human nature might be deified, not in some future state, but now.
This for the Roman the prime function of religion is an ethical one, the regulation of conduct.
For the Greek it is the piercing of the sensory veil, the justification of the divine spark in man with its extraterrestrial affinity, God.
**
COMMENT: I'm with the Greek on this.
*
From Robert Byron - The Byzantine Achievement, 1929
*
The psychological difference between the two Churches lies at bottom in their temporal outlook.
To the Greek, who by nature lives entirely in the present, the conception of future resurrection and future afterlife is obscure. To the Roman it is as clear as his own hand.
The result is that while, for the Roman, the whole impulse of religion is in essence eschatological, woven with the idea of post-human progression, for the Greek it is derived from the desire to seek transfiguration, not in the future, but the present.
The Roman, in this life, is concentrated on the problems of sin and grace: his eyes are fixed on the below; the other world, though parent of his activity, is far off.
For the Greek it is here. He lives in two worlds at once, and his eyes are on the upper of them; the Eucharist is not so much a means of grace as 'a medicine of immortality'.
While in Roman opinion, God became man that man's sins might be forgiven with a view to future immortality, in Greek it was that his human nature might be deified, not in some future state, but now.
This for the Roman the prime function of religion is an ethical one, the regulation of conduct.
For the Greek it is the piercing of the sensory veil, the justification of the divine spark in man with its extraterrestrial affinity, God.
**
COMMENT: I'm with the Greek on this.
*
Destroying Truth to deny unwanted Christian truths
*
It is a simplification, but broadly correct, to regard intellectual anti-Christianity as the root and basis of Leftism.
In other words, Leftism is what you get when anti-Christianitry is rationalized and systemized.
*
Because the desire of secular materialists is not to refute Christianity (refutation of something rational has only a temporary effect) but to discard Christianity permanently.
Not to out-argue Christianity but to set it aside without argument.
And to do this by changing the subject for mankind - by changing the nature of public discourse such that Christian claims are rendered un-discussable.
*
This has been achieved through the past half century; but at terrible cost: the cost of destroying reason and putting metaphysical assumptions off-limits.
Error is now entrenched and intractable in the public arena.
Professional discourse is bureaucratized.
*
Truth talk now is to be found only by active seekers, rarely, in private; and mostly in books not people.
*
It is a simplification, but broadly correct, to regard intellectual anti-Christianity as the root and basis of Leftism.
In other words, Leftism is what you get when anti-Christianitry is rationalized and systemized.
*
Because the desire of secular materialists is not to refute Christianity (refutation of something rational has only a temporary effect) but to discard Christianity permanently.
Not to out-argue Christianity but to set it aside without argument.
And to do this by changing the subject for mankind - by changing the nature of public discourse such that Christian claims are rendered un-discussable.
*
This has been achieved through the past half century; but at terrible cost: the cost of destroying reason and putting metaphysical assumptions off-limits.
Error is now entrenched and intractable in the public arena.
Professional discourse is bureaucratized.
*
Truth talk now is to be found only by active seekers, rarely, in private; and mostly in books not people.
*
Wednesday 30 May 2012
Reason versus repentance (reason is useless)
*
For much of my life I was a kind of rationalist, using reason, logic, evidence to persuade both in person and in polemical articles.
And the internet is full of such people - in particular the secular Right pins everything on the strategy of reasoned and evidential debate as a way of changing things, of getting good decisions and policies.
Well, it doesn't work - not even a little bit.
*
There are many many situations of which I have in-depth knowledge and in which I have been involved - where the rational position is crystal clear and unambiguous; the evidence and logic are irrefutable; the argument is won - yet this makes no difference at all.
And I mean zero difference.
*
Evidence, logic, reason - this just isn't how humans work...
(except for short periods of time among a tiny and self-selected elite in specialized domains).
*
Certain it is that people do not make sacrifices for the future well being (comfort, peace, safety, security) of their culture and civilization.
(Because if you live for comfort, peace, safety, security - than that is what you live for; and you will not be willing to sacrifice sure and certain, here and now and personal c.p.s.s. for the mere hope of a possible share in future social c.p.s.s.)
*
We all know that our civilization is destroying itself actively and purposefully; but we should also know that reason is absolutely definitely and for sure not going to stop this from happening - it will not make any difference at all, may well make matters much worse (by raising antibodies against itself).
*
Only one thing could reverse our suicidal trajectory, and that is repentance: an explicit admission (to ourselves and to others) that we were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong, that is, about (pretty much) everything core - everything fundamental and of the greatest relevance.
A seismic upheaval of repentance would be necessary to reverse the massive inertial decline, the multiple self-inflicted fatal woundings that are afoot.
Short of this, nothing will have any effect.
*
This is why the secular Right is deluded by its own rationality: it is not a matter of tactics - the secular Right is futile in principle because it misunderstands the wellsprings of human motivation and action.
*
Only religion could save us - yet of course religion must be embraced because it is true; not because it would (perhaps) save civilization.
(And, of course, to save this culture and civilization the religion would have to be Christian.)
*
It is not that a religious revival would necessarily save civilization, of course not!
But that without religious revival civilization certainly will not be saved.
Because without religion, men are not motivated to make the vast necessary sacrifices.
Men of reason and utterly without religion are men without chests, men of straw, sub-men - they cannot sustain or save anything at all - except their own skins, in the short term. Certainly not a nation or a culture.
*
But will it happen? Will culture, will civilization be saved by repentance and Christian revival?
Here in the UK it certainly does not look like it, not at all: I see neither signs nor glimmers of this.
I see rather a population of psychotic leaders, and psychodramatic self-absorbed masses - united only in relentless hedonism and a desperate, hourly search for self-esteem.
*
On present trends the UK, England, will lose culture, civilization and Christianity.
England will simply break-down, break-apart, and each fragmentary bit get dominated and filled-up by something else altogether.
But if anything is to be saved, the first step must be Christianity and after that - we shall see...
*
For much of my life I was a kind of rationalist, using reason, logic, evidence to persuade both in person and in polemical articles.
And the internet is full of such people - in particular the secular Right pins everything on the strategy of reasoned and evidential debate as a way of changing things, of getting good decisions and policies.
Well, it doesn't work - not even a little bit.
*
There are many many situations of which I have in-depth knowledge and in which I have been involved - where the rational position is crystal clear and unambiguous; the evidence and logic are irrefutable; the argument is won - yet this makes no difference at all.
And I mean zero difference.
*
Evidence, logic, reason - this just isn't how humans work...
(except for short periods of time among a tiny and self-selected elite in specialized domains).
*
Certain it is that people do not make sacrifices for the future well being (comfort, peace, safety, security) of their culture and civilization.
(Because if you live for comfort, peace, safety, security - than that is what you live for; and you will not be willing to sacrifice sure and certain, here and now and personal c.p.s.s. for the mere hope of a possible share in future social c.p.s.s.)
*
We all know that our civilization is destroying itself actively and purposefully; but we should also know that reason is absolutely definitely and for sure not going to stop this from happening - it will not make any difference at all, may well make matters much worse (by raising antibodies against itself).
*
Only one thing could reverse our suicidal trajectory, and that is repentance: an explicit admission (to ourselves and to others) that we were wrong, wrong, wrong.
Wrong, that is, about (pretty much) everything core - everything fundamental and of the greatest relevance.
A seismic upheaval of repentance would be necessary to reverse the massive inertial decline, the multiple self-inflicted fatal woundings that are afoot.
Short of this, nothing will have any effect.
*
This is why the secular Right is deluded by its own rationality: it is not a matter of tactics - the secular Right is futile in principle because it misunderstands the wellsprings of human motivation and action.
*
Only religion could save us - yet of course religion must be embraced because it is true; not because it would (perhaps) save civilization.
(And, of course, to save this culture and civilization the religion would have to be Christian.)
*
It is not that a religious revival would necessarily save civilization, of course not!
But that without religious revival civilization certainly will not be saved.
Because without religion, men are not motivated to make the vast necessary sacrifices.
Men of reason and utterly without religion are men without chests, men of straw, sub-men - they cannot sustain or save anything at all - except their own skins, in the short term. Certainly not a nation or a culture.
*
But will it happen? Will culture, will civilization be saved by repentance and Christian revival?
Here in the UK it certainly does not look like it, not at all: I see neither signs nor glimmers of this.
I see rather a population of psychotic leaders, and psychodramatic self-absorbed masses - united only in relentless hedonism and a desperate, hourly search for self-esteem.
*
On present trends the UK, England, will lose culture, civilization and Christianity.
England will simply break-down, break-apart, and each fragmentary bit get dominated and filled-up by something else altogether.
But if anything is to be saved, the first step must be Christianity and after that - we shall see...
*
There is no such thing as amoral
*
To tolerate, approve or actively advocate a policy on the basis that it is amoral (or supposedly has no moral significance) is to advocate immorality.
'A-moral' is therefore a dishonest or delusional characterisation of im-moral.
*
This is a sub-category of the fact that there is no such thing as neutrality - except that to advocate neutrality is, indeed, to take the side of evil.
Everything, without exception, has a moral dimension - or, more accurately, everything is more or less Good, more or less evil (Good is moral, beautiful and true in unity - evil is the destruction of these).
And this is a sub-category of life being recognised as a field of unseen or spiritual 'warfare' - with every choice we move closer either to Heaven, or to Hell.
*
Indeed, the characterisation of something as amoral is a particularly insidious form of wickedness - because it helps create a mode of analysis which purports to elude the intrinsic Good-evil axis.
It tries to suggest that some things are 'not significant' (not worth worrying about) which is a step towards saying that nothing is significant - nihilism, in other words.
Amoral is part of the bureaucratic mindset.
*
To tolerate, approve or actively advocate a policy on the basis that it is amoral (or supposedly has no moral significance) is to advocate immorality.
'A-moral' is therefore a dishonest or delusional characterisation of im-moral.
*
This is a sub-category of the fact that there is no such thing as neutrality - except that to advocate neutrality is, indeed, to take the side of evil.
Everything, without exception, has a moral dimension - or, more accurately, everything is more or less Good, more or less evil (Good is moral, beautiful and true in unity - evil is the destruction of these).
And this is a sub-category of life being recognised as a field of unseen or spiritual 'warfare' - with every choice we move closer either to Heaven, or to Hell.
*
Indeed, the characterisation of something as amoral is a particularly insidious form of wickedness - because it helps create a mode of analysis which purports to elude the intrinsic Good-evil axis.
It tries to suggest that some things are 'not significant' (not worth worrying about) which is a step towards saying that nothing is significant - nihilism, in other words.
Amoral is part of the bureaucratic mindset.
*
Tuesday 29 May 2012
Power but no rule
*
We live, in the West, in a society where the greatest power lies with the mass media.
(As we in the UK have discovered recently: Prime ministers come, Prime Minsters go; the nation swings Left, the nation swings 'Right' - but real power, the grey (or red) eminence behind the throne - continues through such changes.)
*
But of course the mass media cannot rule - thus there is no 'government'.
The mass media is powerful because 1. the media are crack cocaine dealers, suppliers of that addictive drug called distraction upon which our society is utterly dependent on an hourly basis; and 2. the media fills our thought and shapes our thinking - defines our education, evaluation and arbitration; and 3. the media can destroy anyone or any institution - can destroy history itself - at will, on principle or at a whim.
*
The mass media, as a hive mind, is the focus of power and yet it does not rule.
Obviously it cannot rule. This is sometimes described as power without responsibility - the situation is much worse than that, because responsibility is not merely being eluded by the mass media - rather, for media responsibility is intrinsically impossible.
The mass media cannot rule, but it can (and does) prevent anyone else from ruling.
*
We live, in the West, in a society where the greatest power lies with the mass media.
(As we in the UK have discovered recently: Prime ministers come, Prime Minsters go; the nation swings Left, the nation swings 'Right' - but real power, the grey (or red) eminence behind the throne - continues through such changes.)
*
But of course the mass media cannot rule - thus there is no 'government'.
The mass media is powerful because 1. the media are crack cocaine dealers, suppliers of that addictive drug called distraction upon which our society is utterly dependent on an hourly basis; and 2. the media fills our thought and shapes our thinking - defines our education, evaluation and arbitration; and 3. the media can destroy anyone or any institution - can destroy history itself - at will, on principle or at a whim.
*
The mass media, as a hive mind, is the focus of power and yet it does not rule.
Obviously it cannot rule. This is sometimes described as power without responsibility - the situation is much worse than that, because responsibility is not merely being eluded by the mass media - rather, for media responsibility is intrinsically impossible.
The mass media cannot rule, but it can (and does) prevent anyone else from ruling.
*
Monday 28 May 2012
Put not thy faith in institutions
*
I grew up in a world which put faith in institutions.
Leaving aside the church for a moment (since I was an atheist) I was among people who had faith in the United Nations, and the European Economic Community (now European Union), the United Kingdom, England, the Labour Party, the National Health Service, Universities and more abstract institutions such as Science and Education.
Such things were regarded as net good, that is good in essence and on average, good on the whole, tending towards good...
I now perceive that none of these are worthy of faith - indeed all modern institutions are net bad, bad in essence and on average, bad on the whole, tending towards evil...
Yet I have not found any worthy substitutes.
*
This world is one in which people seek institutions in which to put their faith - I do it myself, somehow I can't help myself - yet for honest people this has become harder and harder.
We seek some grouping or activity in which to place our hopes and to which we wish to dedicate our best efforts.
Yet we are thwarted in a search for worthy institutions with which to ally ourselves.
Indeed, it is probable that there are none - indeed why should we expect there to be any?
*
The hardest thing for Christians to accept is that this applies also to the official mainstream churches and denominations. If we consider any large, powerful Christian church, we will find that its leadership is driving it away from the Good and into closer alliance with secular hedonistic modernity.
At an institutional level, large and powerful Christian churches are net bad and to support them as a whole is, I am very sorry to say, to support the forces of evil.
(Of course, this has been the usual situation in evil societies - the churches become corrupted - sometimes heretical elements in the churches have led corruption. )
And, conversely, any net Good church - worthy of overall support - will be small and weak.
*
Since most of us work (and worship) in large and powerful institutions, we need to get used to the fact that the good elements which we admire and would wish to support are minority, local and dissenting - usually beleaguered, declining or on the verge of extinction.
Our choice is to be one of these dwindling islands within the large and net-evil institutions en route to being swamped; or to work in a weak and tiny institution that is good-on-the-whole.
*
This applies to churches and denominations.
Real Christians have a choice: to be a persecuted minority within an overall (on average) wicked and corrupt large and powerful church, or whole-hearted members of a church that is overall good but small and weak (or something quantitatively in between).
If a Christian is a member of one of the larger and more powerful churches, he will either be in an embattled minority or essentially corrupt.
(And, of course, most of the embattled minorities are themselves essentially corrupt! - embattled minority status is of itself no indicator of goodness.)
*
We are not on the winning side, and the desire to be on the winning side - and part of something large and powerful - is a force tending towards our own corruption.
What we need to remember, what ought to give us hope, is that everything good we do has an effect.
Not that it might have an effect, but that it does have an effect: not a contingent effect somewhere down the line, but an instant, universal and eternal effect the consequences of which may be obscure and take time to unfold.
*
Not that we necessarily know how or where it has an effect - probably we never will know anything of this (at least not while we are in this world) - but that every single personal, obscure and apparently-'insignificant' act of good is in reality of vast import.
The more difficult our own situation, and the more overwhelming the might of evil institutions brought to bear on Christians, the more Christians are made to feel futile: the more clear should be the universal (albeit mysterious) power of individual acts or tiny and temporary alliances.
*
I grew up in a world which put faith in institutions.
Leaving aside the church for a moment (since I was an atheist) I was among people who had faith in the United Nations, and the European Economic Community (now European Union), the United Kingdom, England, the Labour Party, the National Health Service, Universities and more abstract institutions such as Science and Education.
Such things were regarded as net good, that is good in essence and on average, good on the whole, tending towards good...
I now perceive that none of these are worthy of faith - indeed all modern institutions are net bad, bad in essence and on average, bad on the whole, tending towards evil...
Yet I have not found any worthy substitutes.
*
This world is one in which people seek institutions in which to put their faith - I do it myself, somehow I can't help myself - yet for honest people this has become harder and harder.
We seek some grouping or activity in which to place our hopes and to which we wish to dedicate our best efforts.
Yet we are thwarted in a search for worthy institutions with which to ally ourselves.
Indeed, it is probable that there are none - indeed why should we expect there to be any?
*
The hardest thing for Christians to accept is that this applies also to the official mainstream churches and denominations. If we consider any large, powerful Christian church, we will find that its leadership is driving it away from the Good and into closer alliance with secular hedonistic modernity.
At an institutional level, large and powerful Christian churches are net bad and to support them as a whole is, I am very sorry to say, to support the forces of evil.
(Of course, this has been the usual situation in evil societies - the churches become corrupted - sometimes heretical elements in the churches have led corruption. )
And, conversely, any net Good church - worthy of overall support - will be small and weak.
*
Since most of us work (and worship) in large and powerful institutions, we need to get used to the fact that the good elements which we admire and would wish to support are minority, local and dissenting - usually beleaguered, declining or on the verge of extinction.
Our choice is to be one of these dwindling islands within the large and net-evil institutions en route to being swamped; or to work in a weak and tiny institution that is good-on-the-whole.
*
This applies to churches and denominations.
Real Christians have a choice: to be a persecuted minority within an overall (on average) wicked and corrupt large and powerful church, or whole-hearted members of a church that is overall good but small and weak (or something quantitatively in between).
If a Christian is a member of one of the larger and more powerful churches, he will either be in an embattled minority or essentially corrupt.
(And, of course, most of the embattled minorities are themselves essentially corrupt! - embattled minority status is of itself no indicator of goodness.)
*
We are not on the winning side, and the desire to be on the winning side - and part of something large and powerful - is a force tending towards our own corruption.
What we need to remember, what ought to give us hope, is that everything good we do has an effect.
Not that it might have an effect, but that it does have an effect: not a contingent effect somewhere down the line, but an instant, universal and eternal effect the consequences of which may be obscure and take time to unfold.
*
Not that we necessarily know how or where it has an effect - probably we never will know anything of this (at least not while we are in this world) - but that every single personal, obscure and apparently-'insignificant' act of good is in reality of vast import.
The more difficult our own situation, and the more overwhelming the might of evil institutions brought to bear on Christians, the more Christians are made to feel futile: the more clear should be the universal (albeit mysterious) power of individual acts or tiny and temporary alliances.
*
Sunday 27 May 2012
Attitude to democracy - the litmus test of a reactionary
*
Question: What is the difference between a Conservative and a Reactionary?
Answer: A Conservative is pro-democracy; a Reactionary is anti-democracy.
*
A negative attitude to democracy is pretty close to being the litmus test of being a Reactionary - democracy is so pervasively regarded as 'a good thing' in modern culture that nobody is indifferent to, unsure about their answer to, this question.
Anyone who is pro-democracy is - whether they know it or not, whether they are religious or not - objectively on the side of the Leftists/ Liberals/ Progressives (and, indirectly, atheists) - however moderate or gradualist a member of this tendency they may be.
*
(And the same applies to all non-religious persons - if you are not religious, you are not a Reactionary - because atheism intrinsically and necessarily leads to Leftism, is indeed the root and motivation of Leftism - surely that is obvious by now?)
*
Question: What is the difference between a Conservative and a Reactionary?
Answer: A Conservative is pro-democracy; a Reactionary is anti-democracy.
*
A negative attitude to democracy is pretty close to being the litmus test of being a Reactionary - democracy is so pervasively regarded as 'a good thing' in modern culture that nobody is indifferent to, unsure about their answer to, this question.
Anyone who is pro-democracy is - whether they know it or not, whether they are religious or not - objectively on the side of the Leftists/ Liberals/ Progressives (and, indirectly, atheists) - however moderate or gradualist a member of this tendency they may be.
*
(And the same applies to all non-religious persons - if you are not religious, you are not a Reactionary - because atheism intrinsically and necessarily leads to Leftism, is indeed the root and motivation of Leftism - surely that is obvious by now?)
*
Saturday 26 May 2012
The only jobs worthy of respect - according to W.H Auden
*
From an essay by WH Auden in I Believe: the personal philosophies of twenty-three eminent men and women of our time. London: Allen & Unwin 1941.
The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, some kind of highly skilled craftsman, a research scientist, a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer.
**
This discusses a big problem for many people - I mean the problem of trying to find and work-in 'a job worthy of respect from the point of view of the individual and society'.
As a mid-teen the above passage by WH Auden made a big impact on me, since I was thinking about jobs. I agreed with the above list, more or less, at the time I read it - these were worthwhile jobs, others were not.
But now...
1. Creative artists. Not even trying, highly professionalized ugliness-makers.
2. Highly skilled craftsman. As a hobby, yes; but as a job?
3. A research scientist. A docile and dishonest bureaucrat.
4. A doctor. Dying species, salesman for Big Pharma.
5. A teacher. State propagandist?
6. A farmer. A subsidy-farmer.
*
My point is that all of these few jobs which used to be 'worthy of respect' have been thoroughly infiltrated by the state, bureaucritized, made into cogs in a machinery that does harm. It has become, ahem, a challenge to do respectworthy work in any of the above categories.
This means that nearly everybody is doing work which is not worthy of respect.
(And of those who imagine they do, then this is a delusion or dishonesty.)
Which means that (being honest and clear-headed) we all are beavering away busily at despicable activities which tend to make things worse...
And the situation seems inescapable.
*
From an essay by WH Auden in I Believe: the personal philosophies of twenty-three eminent men and women of our time. London: Allen & Unwin 1941.
The only jobs known to me which seem worthy of respect, both from the point of view of the individual and society, are being a creative artist, some kind of highly skilled craftsman, a research scientist, a doctor, a teacher, or a farmer.
**
This discusses a big problem for many people - I mean the problem of trying to find and work-in 'a job worthy of respect from the point of view of the individual and society'.
As a mid-teen the above passage by WH Auden made a big impact on me, since I was thinking about jobs. I agreed with the above list, more or less, at the time I read it - these were worthwhile jobs, others were not.
But now...
1. Creative artists. Not even trying, highly professionalized ugliness-makers.
2. Highly skilled craftsman. As a hobby, yes; but as a job?
3. A research scientist. A docile and dishonest bureaucrat.
4. A doctor. Dying species, salesman for Big Pharma.
5. A teacher. State propagandist?
6. A farmer. A subsidy-farmer.
*
My point is that all of these few jobs which used to be 'worthy of respect' have been thoroughly infiltrated by the state, bureaucritized, made into cogs in a machinery that does harm. It has become, ahem, a challenge to do respectworthy work in any of the above categories.
This means that nearly everybody is doing work which is not worthy of respect.
(And of those who imagine they do, then this is a delusion or dishonesty.)
Which means that (being honest and clear-headed) we all are beavering away busily at despicable activities which tend to make things worse...
And the situation seems inescapable.
*
Friday 25 May 2012
Corrosive college
*
A residential college ought to be organised, busy and supervised (and Christian) - but when (as now) it isn't then it reflects the character of the students; which is that this period of life is characterised by the highest lifetime levels of neuroticism (moodiness), extraversion (need for the company of others, intolerance of solitude), and generally lower conscientiousness (poor concentration, need for distraction) and less empathy than later adult life.
*
And modern college students are too old - college should begin the the mid-teens, and end before twenty; when humans are biologically at the peak of learning ability.
(And of course the vast majority of people should not go to college, but only those who are intended for the intellectual professions.)
*
The problems of modern college are not real problems but societally self-inflicted problems: they are the kind of problems you get from doing something you don't need to do and shouldn't be doing in the first place.
In fact, college is one of those Leftist 'benefits' - I mean the sort of Goods that are the outcome of re-labelling damage as construction. As when a cripplingly expensive, intellectually harmful, morally corrosive waste of human life is relabelled as an unchallengeable benefit, nay human right.
It is on a par with relabelling crime as vibrancy, parasitism as injustice, self-gratification as the highest virtue and entitlement...
*
Modern college is a multi-valent anti-Christian force of civilizational destruction - instilling addiction, destroying motivation, inculcating the metaphysics of hedonistic nihilism...
No wonder college is so popular with the Left!
*
A residential college ought to be organised, busy and supervised (and Christian) - but when (as now) it isn't then it reflects the character of the students; which is that this period of life is characterised by the highest lifetime levels of neuroticism (moodiness), extraversion (need for the company of others, intolerance of solitude), and generally lower conscientiousness (poor concentration, need for distraction) and less empathy than later adult life.
*
And modern college students are too old - college should begin the the mid-teens, and end before twenty; when humans are biologically at the peak of learning ability.
(And of course the vast majority of people should not go to college, but only those who are intended for the intellectual professions.)
*
The problems of modern college are not real problems but societally self-inflicted problems: they are the kind of problems you get from doing something you don't need to do and shouldn't be doing in the first place.
In fact, college is one of those Leftist 'benefits' - I mean the sort of Goods that are the outcome of re-labelling damage as construction. As when a cripplingly expensive, intellectually harmful, morally corrosive waste of human life is relabelled as an unchallengeable benefit, nay human right.
It is on a par with relabelling crime as vibrancy, parasitism as injustice, self-gratification as the highest virtue and entitlement...
*
Modern college is a multi-valent anti-Christian force of civilizational destruction - instilling addiction, destroying motivation, inculcating the metaphysics of hedonistic nihilism...
No wonder college is so popular with the Left!
*
Thursday 24 May 2012
I'm *not* going to believe it - and *you* can't make me
*
The phrase above pretty much sums up my own attitude to Christianity through most of my life. All I knew for sure was that I didn't want to be a Christian (I wanted to be and do, what *I* wanted to be and do); and I defended this rather specific unbelief by a fluid mixture of reason and emotion.
In general, I thought of myself as far more intelligent and rational than Christians, far more honest and tough-minded.
Yet I always knew and sometimes said that if a Roman Catholic apologist (I always assumed that this would be a Jesuit, for some reason) could ever pin me down, then I could be defeated by logic - because these guys had memorized and practiced all the answers to every possible objection.
But I still knew that I was right because Christian rationality was, I believed, a facile achievement of post hoc reasoning - reasoning from the result to the premises. So I would reject all this scholasticism, without even meeting it, because I knew in my guts that they were wrong.
It was a heady feeling to know that nobody could persuade me of Christianity, that I could always find reasons not to believe, whether reason or gut feeling, and that therefore I would remain un-defeatable as the master of my own private destiny.
I was, in fact, a case history of the overmastering power of pride: pride revelling in pride; and this not just by accident but as a matter of highest principle and core conviction.
Pride as the primary Good, the highest value.
*
The phrase above pretty much sums up my own attitude to Christianity through most of my life. All I knew for sure was that I didn't want to be a Christian (I wanted to be and do, what *I* wanted to be and do); and I defended this rather specific unbelief by a fluid mixture of reason and emotion.
In general, I thought of myself as far more intelligent and rational than Christians, far more honest and tough-minded.
Yet I always knew and sometimes said that if a Roman Catholic apologist (I always assumed that this would be a Jesuit, for some reason) could ever pin me down, then I could be defeated by logic - because these guys had memorized and practiced all the answers to every possible objection.
But I still knew that I was right because Christian rationality was, I believed, a facile achievement of post hoc reasoning - reasoning from the result to the premises. So I would reject all this scholasticism, without even meeting it, because I knew in my guts that they were wrong.
It was a heady feeling to know that nobody could persuade me of Christianity, that I could always find reasons not to believe, whether reason or gut feeling, and that therefore I would remain un-defeatable as the master of my own private destiny.
I was, in fact, a case history of the overmastering power of pride: pride revelling in pride; and this not just by accident but as a matter of highest principle and core conviction.
Pride as the primary Good, the highest value.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)