*
Joseph Pearce. Literary converts: spiritual inspiration in an age of unbelief. HarperCollins, 1999
*
Roman Catholic readers and commenters are probably familiar with the apparently tireless and extraordinarily prolific Joseph Pearce, who has one of the most remarkable conversion narratives of modern times.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2550/from_skinhead_bulldog_to_catholic_man_of_letters.aspx#.UjH37tHQTqc
I have read quite a few of his books, including two very good biographies of Solzhenitsyn and Belloc - and this is certainly one of the best: pleasant to read, always interesting, and indeed a notably skillfuly-woven tapestry of biographies of some of the major British converts to Catholicism in the twentieth century - mostly Roman Catholicis, but also including some of the then-still-vigorous High Church Anglican/ Anglo-Catholics such as TS Eliot, CS Lewis, Dorothy L Sayers and the like.
Many people are covered, some still famous, like Graham Greene and Evelyn Waugh; others once extremely influential but now little known, like Ronald Knox, Arnold Lunn, Father Martin D'Arcy and Christopher Dawson.
The thread which runs through it all is GK Chesterton, who opened the century with Heretics and then followed it with probably the most influential book of Christian apologetics of this period: Orthodoxy.
*
What comes through is that until around 1950 there were real hopes of a widespread and powerful Catholic and Christian revival in England- it seemed like things were building-up quite well, with a stream of impressive and prestigious converts, linking-up and assisting each other, plenty of books being published, and the perception of a kind of momentum.
It is hard not to feel some nostalgia for this era; but of course we know that it didn't last, and England fell away from Christianity of all kinds, to reach an extremely low level - both quantitatively and qualitatively - in present times.
Indeed, matters are notably worse now even than in the late 1990s when this book was written. I approve of the tone of Chestertonian robustness, energy and optimism here; and which is generally maintained by the magazine Joseph Pearce edits: the St Austin Review; but it does by now sound rather hollow, I am sorry to say...
*
Note added: Virtually all of these eminent converts were, like Tolkien - http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/tolkien-and-world-historical-disaster.html - very strongly against the Second Vatican Council and its consequences. This confirmed my prior belief that Vatican II was little short of a catastrophe for the Roman Catholic Church.
Thursday 12 September 2013
The error of Calvinistic predestination, and its origin
*
The idea that some souls are created and predestined by God to be damned is - or ought to be - an obvious error to a Christian, in that it is refuted by just about every part of the Bible; which is mostly a series of stories about people making choices with every indication that these are real choices with real salvific consequences.
Against this, the evidence of a few decontextualized and ambiguous Scriptural sentences cannot possibly stand.
*
But from where did this error arise, late in the history of Christianity?
My assumption is that it arose from the attempt to hold-onto God's complete and utterly specific foresight (omniscience - call this version 'strong-omniscience'); while rejecting the Classical philosophy - especially the varieties of Platonism - which allow this to be compatible with Christianity.
*
The Classical philosophical solution is to have God outside of Time, surveying everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen - simultaneously.
But inside of Time, where we dwell, Time is linear and choices are real and not pre-determined.
*
(Ref: This is explained by Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#Page_229 )
*
Now, this philosophical solution is problematic - and indeed it is not really matter-of-factly coherent - but it does-a-job of making omniscience compatible with Christianity.
If, as with Mormons, the Classical philosophical perspective is rejected; and all Time is regarded as linear - then choices are real but there can be no no strong-omniscience; because the reality of human choice stands between the present and the future, and determines salvation.
However the Calvinistic half-way house of linear-time + strong-omniscience = damnation by pre-destination is not-Christian.
Obviously, I'd have thought?
**
OK - that was c 280 words for me to explain why I believe that Calvinistic predestination is an error - because conflicting with the fundamental basis of Christianity in personal choice; and also how I believe the error arose - by holding onto strong-omniscience while rejecting the Classical Philosophical concept of eternity.
It should not be necessary, but probably is, to emphasize that am not saying that Calvinists are not Christians! - but that the specific philosophical idea of predestination is not Christian. And I greatly respect quite a few Calvinist Christians - Martyn Lloyd Jones, in particular - also Jerram Barrs and my friend the blogger Alistair Roberts.
I would welcome - really I would! - a coherent account of Calvinistic predetermination that explains how it is 1. coherent and also 2. compatible with Christianity.
I will allow 280 words...
*
The idea that some souls are created and predestined by God to be damned is - or ought to be - an obvious error to a Christian, in that it is refuted by just about every part of the Bible; which is mostly a series of stories about people making choices with every indication that these are real choices with real salvific consequences.
Against this, the evidence of a few decontextualized and ambiguous Scriptural sentences cannot possibly stand.
*
But from where did this error arise, late in the history of Christianity?
My assumption is that it arose from the attempt to hold-onto God's complete and utterly specific foresight (omniscience - call this version 'strong-omniscience'); while rejecting the Classical philosophy - especially the varieties of Platonism - which allow this to be compatible with Christianity.
*
The Classical philosophical solution is to have God outside of Time, surveying everything that has happened, is happening and ever will happen - simultaneously.
But inside of Time, where we dwell, Time is linear and choices are real and not pre-determined.
*
(Ref: This is explained by Boethius in The Consolation of Philosophy
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14328/14328-h/14328-h.htm#Page_229 )
*
Now, this philosophical solution is problematic - and indeed it is not really matter-of-factly coherent - but it does-a-job of making omniscience compatible with Christianity.
If, as with Mormons, the Classical philosophical perspective is rejected; and all Time is regarded as linear - then choices are real but there can be no no strong-omniscience; because the reality of human choice stands between the present and the future, and determines salvation.
However the Calvinistic half-way house of linear-time + strong-omniscience = damnation by pre-destination is not-Christian.
Obviously, I'd have thought?
**
OK - that was c 280 words for me to explain why I believe that Calvinistic predestination is an error - because conflicting with the fundamental basis of Christianity in personal choice; and also how I believe the error arose - by holding onto strong-omniscience while rejecting the Classical Philosophical concept of eternity.
It should not be necessary, but probably is, to emphasize that am not saying that Calvinists are not Christians! - but that the specific philosophical idea of predestination is not Christian. And I greatly respect quite a few Calvinist Christians - Martyn Lloyd Jones, in particular - also Jerram Barrs and my friend the blogger Alistair Roberts.
I would welcome - really I would! - a coherent account of Calvinistic predetermination that explains how it is 1. coherent and also 2. compatible with Christianity.
I will allow 280 words...
*
What is Leftism? Four historical phases
*
Leftism is 'Anti' - it is not Pro- anything in particular; and this can be seen from the fact that the defining feature of Leftism throughout history has changed - at various points Leftism has been pro-individual freedom, productive work, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality before the law - now Leftism is strongly against all of these things.
*
Starting from the ideal of a Christian Theocracy - an aimed-at situation where all aspects of life would be harmoniously Christian (by choice), and no clear division between Church and State because everything is, in a sense, part of The Church - there are four main Anti phases, defining four progressive steps in Leftism.
*
Leftism 1. Anti-Theocracy
In favour of the separation of Church and State - with Church above State.
*
Leftism 2. Anti-Christian
Initially Deism, later secularism of public discourse (public debate is not settled by Christian arguments, but requires secular justifications). In favour of separation of Church and State - but with State above Church.
*
Leftism 3. Anti-Tradition
This was the Old Left/ Socialism - concerned with overturning the old social order. Anti- whatever traditional divisions variously of slavery, caste, class, sex, marital status, religious affiliation, race, nationality, employment, age and so on.
*
Leftism 4. Anti-Natural Law/ -Common Sense/ -Spontaneous and Instinctive
This is the New Left (post-mid 1960s), also termed political correctness; and communism. This is the Leftism of inversion: what was bad is good (and vice versa); what was ugly is beautiful (and vice versa); what was false is true (and vice versa); what was high status is low (and vice versa)... and so on through all of society; and through each person's public discourse and private mind.
**
Of course there are counter-movements, some places have been exempted certain stages; and the origins of these phases of Leftism typically have a lag of about a generation between their intellectual devising and the implementation by elites, and their popular acceptance. But in the long term, Leftism seems to be a slippery slope, and it seems hard to prevent down-sliding to the next phase - presumably because each successful step in Leftism further weakens opposition.
*
Leftism is 'Anti' - it is not Pro- anything in particular; and this can be seen from the fact that the defining feature of Leftism throughout history has changed - at various points Leftism has been pro-individual freedom, productive work, equality of opportunity, equality of outcome, equality before the law - now Leftism is strongly against all of these things.
*
Starting from the ideal of a Christian Theocracy - an aimed-at situation where all aspects of life would be harmoniously Christian (by choice), and no clear division between Church and State because everything is, in a sense, part of The Church - there are four main Anti phases, defining four progressive steps in Leftism.
*
Leftism 1. Anti-Theocracy
In favour of the separation of Church and State - with Church above State.
*
Leftism 2. Anti-Christian
Initially Deism, later secularism of public discourse (public debate is not settled by Christian arguments, but requires secular justifications). In favour of separation of Church and State - but with State above Church.
*
Leftism 3. Anti-Tradition
This was the Old Left/ Socialism - concerned with overturning the old social order. Anti- whatever traditional divisions variously of slavery, caste, class, sex, marital status, religious affiliation, race, nationality, employment, age and so on.
*
Leftism 4. Anti-Natural Law/ -Common Sense/ -Spontaneous and Instinctive
This is the New Left (post-mid 1960s), also termed political correctness; and communism. This is the Leftism of inversion: what was bad is good (and vice versa); what was ugly is beautiful (and vice versa); what was false is true (and vice versa); what was high status is low (and vice versa)... and so on through all of society; and through each person's public discourse and private mind.
**
Of course there are counter-movements, some places have been exempted certain stages; and the origins of these phases of Leftism typically have a lag of about a generation between their intellectual devising and the implementation by elites, and their popular acceptance. But in the long term, Leftism seems to be a slippery slope, and it seems hard to prevent down-sliding to the next phase - presumably because each successful step in Leftism further weakens opposition.
*
Wednesday 11 September 2013
C.S Lewis's Trilemma as THE Christian moment
*
In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis made a famous, perhaps notorious - and I believe profoundly true statement:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
*
This is saying that Jesus intended to present Himself as someone who was either The Christ and Son of God; or else must be regarded as either insane or evil. A trilemma - a three way choice.
*
For me, the shocking nature of Jesus's behaviour is very well brought out in this four minute dramatization of John 8: 12-58 - the 'I am the light of the world' section - especially the contrast between Jesus's calm and emphatic manner of speaking, and the response of the priests and of the crowd
http://tinyurl.com/ph342pc
*
Indeed, I think this is something of a key to Christianity, and to becoming a Christian.
We need to come to that point where we see that the claims of Christianity are - on the one hand - coherent, and that there is evidence to support them; but on the other hand that the evidence is not conclusive, nor compelling of assent - but rather that the claims are vast, shocking, extraordinary...
And that having come to this point, a point of balance - our free will has been brought to a moment of decision, of choice between two divergent paths, two contrasted world views.
*
So it is not un-reasonable nor utterly counter-evidential to reject Christ, in the sense that the whole thing can be regarded as a tissue of falsehoods and misunderstandings and coincidences; a horrible scheme of exploitation.
In this sense, militant atheists are perfectly correct to regard Christianity as evil or insane - if it is not true, Christianity in an individual is either evil or stupid-insane; and long-term strategic organized Christianity (The Church), which cannot be regarded as insane, is therefore and necessarily evil: some kind of elaborate trick, disguise and conspiracy.
*
Since we really are free agents, this point and no further is how far God can bring us: to the point of recognizing the necessity of a choice for which there is no safe default decision and for which we bear individual responsibility.
God can bring us to the Trilemma, and after that we are responsible for what happens.
*
This point of balance, of treble choice - Lewis's Trilemma - is something we feel if the strategy is has worked, if - that is - the circumstances or argument has succeeded in bringing us up to this point... but of course the attempt to bring people to this point may not work on any particular instance.
In which case the apologist must try again.
But this is the proper goal of evangelism: not to bludgeon the potential convert into submission by pretending that Christianity is the one and only necessary sane consequence of irrefutable arguments and evidence; but to bring the potential convert to that point at which he sees Christianity as reasonable but extraordinary: and perceives the road branching ahead - and acknowledges that in this exact here-and-now, it is up to him and to nobody and nothing else.
*
In Mere Christianity, CS Lewis made a famous, perhaps notorious - and I believe profoundly true statement:
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
*
This is saying that Jesus intended to present Himself as someone who was either The Christ and Son of God; or else must be regarded as either insane or evil. A trilemma - a three way choice.
*
For me, the shocking nature of Jesus's behaviour is very well brought out in this four minute dramatization of John 8: 12-58 - the 'I am the light of the world' section - especially the contrast between Jesus's calm and emphatic manner of speaking, and the response of the priests and of the crowd
http://tinyurl.com/ph342pc
*
Indeed, I think this is something of a key to Christianity, and to becoming a Christian.
We need to come to that point where we see that the claims of Christianity are - on the one hand - coherent, and that there is evidence to support them; but on the other hand that the evidence is not conclusive, nor compelling of assent - but rather that the claims are vast, shocking, extraordinary...
And that having come to this point, a point of balance - our free will has been brought to a moment of decision, of choice between two divergent paths, two contrasted world views.
*
So it is not un-reasonable nor utterly counter-evidential to reject Christ, in the sense that the whole thing can be regarded as a tissue of falsehoods and misunderstandings and coincidences; a horrible scheme of exploitation.
In this sense, militant atheists are perfectly correct to regard Christianity as evil or insane - if it is not true, Christianity in an individual is either evil or stupid-insane; and long-term strategic organized Christianity (The Church), which cannot be regarded as insane, is therefore and necessarily evil: some kind of elaborate trick, disguise and conspiracy.
*
Since we really are free agents, this point and no further is how far God can bring us: to the point of recognizing the necessity of a choice for which there is no safe default decision and for which we bear individual responsibility.
God can bring us to the Trilemma, and after that we are responsible for what happens.
*
This point of balance, of treble choice - Lewis's Trilemma - is something we feel if the strategy is has worked, if - that is - the circumstances or argument has succeeded in bringing us up to this point... but of course the attempt to bring people to this point may not work on any particular instance.
In which case the apologist must try again.
But this is the proper goal of evangelism: not to bludgeon the potential convert into submission by pretending that Christianity is the one and only necessary sane consequence of irrefutable arguments and evidence; but to bring the potential convert to that point at which he sees Christianity as reasonable but extraordinary: and perceives the road branching ahead - and acknowledges that in this exact here-and-now, it is up to him and to nobody and nothing else.
*
Tuesday 10 September 2013
Spiritual pride and the necessity for theosis
*
The sin of spiritual pride is a focus of the ascetic monastic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also recognized by the Western Catholic tradition - although not given such prominence; and indeed by monastic Zen Buddhists.
*
Spiritual pride is the particular sin of those who embark upon a personal quest for holiness, for sanctity (the path to Sainthood), for theosis (becoming more like God) - and the sin is something like regarding one's own will as if it were the divine will - or perhaps being deceived into regarding demonic promptings as if they were divine.
The particular problem of spiritual pride, is that the person who suffers it imagines they are at a higher spiritual level than those around them, and so becomes immune to advice, warning, criticism.
The Eastern Orthodox antidote is to embark on ascetic disciplines only under supervision of a spiritual Father - and initially in a monastic (group) setting, with the monks 'looking out for each other'.
The assumption is that the spiritual Father has attained a sufficiently high level of theosis that he can detect and help solve the problems in the apprentice; and the apprentice must, for his own good, submit to this authority. The religious life is thus transmitted from Master to apprentice in an unbroken chain - implicitly originating and emanating from the Apostles at the time of Christ. (
However, it seems that the chain of tradition has been broken in many or most places in the world, which means that this method of attaining theosis is no longer possible - at least for most people in most places.)
*
My impression is that spiritual pride is especially a problem of spiritual ambition, when spiritual ambition is contaminated by the desire for one's own power and glory - e.g. the desire to make a 'successful career' of being a recognized Holy Man (rather like those fake 'gurus' of the 1960s), or simply the status of holiness - even purely the the self-satisfied 'smugness' of regarding oneself as of higher holiness than others.
*
Yet of course spiritual ambition is in itself 'a good thing' - and very necessary in a world such as ours where spirituality is at a pitifully low ebb.
But it seems that an onslaught on spirituality, aided by fasting, many hours of prayer, vigils (staying awake all night to pray) is - while often effective - hazardous; and hazardous in a similar way to the 1960s use of psychedelic drugs to create spiritual experiences - selfish, evil, demonic experiences are mistaken for insights, miracles and divine revelations.
These smack of a very modern impatience, sensation-seeking, mere curiosity, desire for novelty and impressive, extreme, experiences which can be boasted about.
*
It might have been expected that, on theological grounds, the Mormon religion would be especially prone to spiritual pride - since it makes theosis (called exaltation) into a central tenet: we are God's children - hence of the same nature as the divine - in a much more literal sense than in mainstream Christianity; there is a different concept of The Fall, thus no Original Sin to 'worry about'; and there is at least a remote and theoretical potential of each human becoming a God (under God the Father, but of similar scope) - which would seem like a very direct invitation to arrogance, selfishness.
Furthermore, all Mormons are told to ask for and expect to receive personal divine revelations - direct communications from God - to guide them through life
And yet spiritual pride is not a particular feature of Mormons nor much of a problem in the LDS church.
*
This apparent relative immunity to spiritual pride (at least, compared with other Christian traditions which emphasize theosis/ sanctification) may be related to the much more human ('anthropomorphic') understanding of God.
Mormons would tend to regard God the Father as a vast, almost infinite amplification of Man - i.e. starting from Man; while most mainstream Christian theology starts with abstract definitions of God, and tries to move towards Man - but typically cannot get very far with the comparison. It is a matter of starting at opposite ends.
Terryl and Fiona Givens - writing in The God Who Weeps - also suggest that the traditional Mormon emphasis has been much less on a God of infinite Power and Glory, and more on a God of infinite love and compassion (as depicted in the weeping God of Enoch's experience and depicted in the scripture Moses 7: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng).
To become ever more like a God the Father whose love is 'infinite' such that his suffering for the sins of the world is 'infinite' (like the mortal earthly Father of a vast family of deeply loved and profoundly suffering children) is not really the kind of goal likely to be provoking of spiritual pride.
*
Another difference is that the Mormon spiritual life is ideally in a family context - not a monastery nor in solitude.This guards against the many problems of ascetic monasticism.
Indeed, the opposite problem of worldly busy-ness - too much social doing, and not enough solitude, contemplation and prayer - would seem to be the characteristic limitation of Mormon spirituality.
*
Another difference is that for Mormons the path of theosis (exaltation) goes beyond death into the next life - and indeed stretches out into infinity.
Mormons may be aiming to become a God at some point in the unimaginably remote future, but in the meantime the main business is the hourly, daily, yearly business of living by the Commandments, working, serving, striving and so on - and this continues into the after life.
In other words, for Mormons there is not much sense of urgency about theosis - quite the reverse, since it stretches into an eternal future - exaltation it is mostly a matter for patience and endurance.
*
This is in stark contrast to mainstream Christianity where sanctification/ theosis is urgent and the clock of mortality is ticking.
Protestants generally regard spiritual progress as stopping at the instant of death, at which point the possibilities of salvation are fixed.
Catholics acknowledge a short period of potential spiritual development after death (e.g. the forty days of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic purgatory) during which salvation/ theosis may be affected - but this seems to be conceptualized as a period when the soul may be helped by the intercessions of others, rather than its own efforts.
*
All this is very important stuff, to my understanding, since sanctification/ theosis/ exaltation is the main business of our continued experience of mortal life - it is what we ought to be focused on as our main business, day by day, hour by hour, year on year.
The main business of incarnate mortal life is - as the name implies - to experience 1. living in a body, and 2. dying. It is these which are the essence of this life we live - and these are experienced by everybody.
*
Beyond that, human experience is very varied - some die in the womb, or as infants, others live for varying times and in varying circumstances. The question is, beyond the necessity of not-rejecting that salvation which Christ has given us - what should we do with our days?
The answer is theosis - so we are called-upon to be spiritually ambitious, to progress as far as we can towards divinity during incarnate mortal life.
Therefore (assuming the above reasoning is correct), theosis is a topic which deserves, which requires, a lot more consideration than it is given in most Christian traditions.
*
The sin of spiritual pride is a focus of the ascetic monastic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also recognized by the Western Catholic tradition - although not given such prominence; and indeed by monastic Zen Buddhists.
*
Spiritual pride is the particular sin of those who embark upon a personal quest for holiness, for sanctity (the path to Sainthood), for theosis (becoming more like God) - and the sin is something like regarding one's own will as if it were the divine will - or perhaps being deceived into regarding demonic promptings as if they were divine.
The particular problem of spiritual pride, is that the person who suffers it imagines they are at a higher spiritual level than those around them, and so becomes immune to advice, warning, criticism.
The Eastern Orthodox antidote is to embark on ascetic disciplines only under supervision of a spiritual Father - and initially in a monastic (group) setting, with the monks 'looking out for each other'.
The assumption is that the spiritual Father has attained a sufficiently high level of theosis that he can detect and help solve the problems in the apprentice; and the apprentice must, for his own good, submit to this authority. The religious life is thus transmitted from Master to apprentice in an unbroken chain - implicitly originating and emanating from the Apostles at the time of Christ. (
However, it seems that the chain of tradition has been broken in many or most places in the world, which means that this method of attaining theosis is no longer possible - at least for most people in most places.)
*
My impression is that spiritual pride is especially a problem of spiritual ambition, when spiritual ambition is contaminated by the desire for one's own power and glory - e.g. the desire to make a 'successful career' of being a recognized Holy Man (rather like those fake 'gurus' of the 1960s), or simply the status of holiness - even purely the the self-satisfied 'smugness' of regarding oneself as of higher holiness than others.
*
Yet of course spiritual ambition is in itself 'a good thing' - and very necessary in a world such as ours where spirituality is at a pitifully low ebb.
But it seems that an onslaught on spirituality, aided by fasting, many hours of prayer, vigils (staying awake all night to pray) is - while often effective - hazardous; and hazardous in a similar way to the 1960s use of psychedelic drugs to create spiritual experiences - selfish, evil, demonic experiences are mistaken for insights, miracles and divine revelations.
These smack of a very modern impatience, sensation-seeking, mere curiosity, desire for novelty and impressive, extreme, experiences which can be boasted about.
*
It might have been expected that, on theological grounds, the Mormon religion would be especially prone to spiritual pride - since it makes theosis (called exaltation) into a central tenet: we are God's children - hence of the same nature as the divine - in a much more literal sense than in mainstream Christianity; there is a different concept of The Fall, thus no Original Sin to 'worry about'; and there is at least a remote and theoretical potential of each human becoming a God (under God the Father, but of similar scope) - which would seem like a very direct invitation to arrogance, selfishness.
Furthermore, all Mormons are told to ask for and expect to receive personal divine revelations - direct communications from God - to guide them through life
And yet spiritual pride is not a particular feature of Mormons nor much of a problem in the LDS church.
*
This apparent relative immunity to spiritual pride (at least, compared with other Christian traditions which emphasize theosis/ sanctification) may be related to the much more human ('anthropomorphic') understanding of God.
Mormons would tend to regard God the Father as a vast, almost infinite amplification of Man - i.e. starting from Man; while most mainstream Christian theology starts with abstract definitions of God, and tries to move towards Man - but typically cannot get very far with the comparison. It is a matter of starting at opposite ends.
Terryl and Fiona Givens - writing in The God Who Weeps - also suggest that the traditional Mormon emphasis has been much less on a God of infinite Power and Glory, and more on a God of infinite love and compassion (as depicted in the weeping God of Enoch's experience and depicted in the scripture Moses 7: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng).
To become ever more like a God the Father whose love is 'infinite' such that his suffering for the sins of the world is 'infinite' (like the mortal earthly Father of a vast family of deeply loved and profoundly suffering children) is not really the kind of goal likely to be provoking of spiritual pride.
*
Another difference is that the Mormon spiritual life is ideally in a family context - not a monastery nor in solitude.This guards against the many problems of ascetic monasticism.
Indeed, the opposite problem of worldly busy-ness - too much social doing, and not enough solitude, contemplation and prayer - would seem to be the characteristic limitation of Mormon spirituality.
*
Another difference is that for Mormons the path of theosis (exaltation) goes beyond death into the next life - and indeed stretches out into infinity.
Mormons may be aiming to become a God at some point in the unimaginably remote future, but in the meantime the main business is the hourly, daily, yearly business of living by the Commandments, working, serving, striving and so on - and this continues into the after life.
In other words, for Mormons there is not much sense of urgency about theosis - quite the reverse, since it stretches into an eternal future - exaltation it is mostly a matter for patience and endurance.
*
This is in stark contrast to mainstream Christianity where sanctification/ theosis is urgent and the clock of mortality is ticking.
Protestants generally regard spiritual progress as stopping at the instant of death, at which point the possibilities of salvation are fixed.
Catholics acknowledge a short period of potential spiritual development after death (e.g. the forty days of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic purgatory) during which salvation/ theosis may be affected - but this seems to be conceptualized as a period when the soul may be helped by the intercessions of others, rather than its own efforts.
*
All this is very important stuff, to my understanding, since sanctification/ theosis/ exaltation is the main business of our continued experience of mortal life - it is what we ought to be focused on as our main business, day by day, hour by hour, year on year.
The main business of incarnate mortal life is - as the name implies - to experience 1. living in a body, and 2. dying. It is these which are the essence of this life we live - and these are experienced by everybody.
*
Beyond that, human experience is very varied - some die in the womb, or as infants, others live for varying times and in varying circumstances. The question is, beyond the necessity of not-rejecting that salvation which Christ has given us - what should we do with our days?
The answer is theosis - so we are called-upon to be spiritually ambitious, to progress as far as we can towards divinity during incarnate mortal life.
Therefore (assuming the above reasoning is correct), theosis is a topic which deserves, which requires, a lot more consideration than it is given in most Christian traditions.
*
Monday 9 September 2013
What is your favourite Book of the Bible?
*
If the Bible is fractal or holographic - such that each unit contains the whole - then it should not matter much which part is the focus (so long as the spirit is right).
But my favourite book of the Bible is and I think always has been the Gospel of St John (in the Authorized/ King James Version, of course) - a profoundly un-original preference, and indeed exactly what would be expected for the kind of person I am.
(Behind this would come the first Epistle and the last section of the other book by John: the Revelation or Apocalypse; and the Psalms.)
Why? It is, I think, a matter of connection - these are the parts of the Bible when I most often feel a connection flash across 2000 years; and then the feeling of warmth and yearning slow-burning in the heart.
And this, in turn, seems to be a matter of personal identification with John himself - to me the most love-able of the persons in the Bible; the one I would most wish to have known.
*
If the Bible is fractal or holographic - such that each unit contains the whole - then it should not matter much which part is the focus (so long as the spirit is right).
But my favourite book of the Bible is and I think always has been the Gospel of St John (in the Authorized/ King James Version, of course) - a profoundly un-original preference, and indeed exactly what would be expected for the kind of person I am.
(Behind this would come the first Epistle and the last section of the other book by John: the Revelation or Apocalypse; and the Psalms.)
Why? It is, I think, a matter of connection - these are the parts of the Bible when I most often feel a connection flash across 2000 years; and then the feeling of warmth and yearning slow-burning in the heart.
And this, in turn, seems to be a matter of personal identification with John himself - to me the most love-able of the persons in the Bible; the one I would most wish to have known.
*
Saturday 7 September 2013
An evidence-free world
*
In the 1990s there was a movement for 'evidence-based medicine' which was actually a movement for evidence-free medicine - since the assertion was that the only admissible 'evidence' for effectiveness of any treatment was restricted to large randomized controlled trials.
But large RCTs are funded only by large corporations and bureaucracies, and therefore medicine was reconfigured as a coalition of the Big Pharmaceutical Companies and the Health Service Administration who both conducted and 'officialy' interpreted RCTs.
So evidence-based medicine was in fact evidence-free medicine - since nothing could count as evidence against the official pronouncements of the bureaucrats.
No amount of personal experience, nothing that happened in the world, not even a pile of dead bodies, could count as evidence against 'the guidelines'.
*
But this phenomenon is general in the modern world.
Evidence does not merely count for little, it counts for nothing at all.
If the ruling media and bureaucrats want something to happen, then they need no evidence for it (beyond somebody's assertion that it is good, or a made-up anecdote or two about the suffering it may prevent); but if they don't want something to be true, then no amount of evidence is ever enough to change their minds.
*
In an evidence-free world, there is a complete, utter and absolute disconnection between what people believe and do - and what happens as a consequence.
Indeed, it is exactly consequence-iality which is denied - since the basis of being liberated from evidence is that we can never be sure about consequences therefore everything (and I mean everything) about what we do, depends on where we bestow the benefit of the doubt.
*
The evidence-free rulers always give themselves the benefit of the doubt.
If they want to do something, their opponents have to prove that no good can possibly come of it; if they don't want to do something, opponents have to prove that unless they did this precise things the result must necessarily be instant catastrophe.
If they want to assert a fact, opponents have to prove that it cannot be true under any possible combination of circumstances; if they don't want to acknowledge a fact, their opponents have to prove that there is no other possible explanation that could be devised.
In sum, there is always doubt about causality, and doubt about lack of causality, therefore the conclusion depends upon the side where that doubt is bestowed as being most significant.
*
When doubt is defined such as to be universal, and everything depends on which side gets the benefit of that doubt - then there is not room for evidence to play any role in decisions: we have an evidence-free world.
*
The lesson for opponents to Leftism is to forget about evidence in relation to public discourse - because in an evidence-free world the only admissible evidence is evidence against you; and the benefit of the doubt is bestowed on your enemies.
In an evidence-free world where plausibility and common sense count for nothing whatsoever, enemies of the Left are called upon to prove their innocence, prove that they are stating the only conceivable truth and nothing but the state: and prove these beyond any possible, imaginable shadow of doubt.
*
In the 1990s there was a movement for 'evidence-based medicine' which was actually a movement for evidence-free medicine - since the assertion was that the only admissible 'evidence' for effectiveness of any treatment was restricted to large randomized controlled trials.
But large RCTs are funded only by large corporations and bureaucracies, and therefore medicine was reconfigured as a coalition of the Big Pharmaceutical Companies and the Health Service Administration who both conducted and 'officialy' interpreted RCTs.
So evidence-based medicine was in fact evidence-free medicine - since nothing could count as evidence against the official pronouncements of the bureaucrats.
No amount of personal experience, nothing that happened in the world, not even a pile of dead bodies, could count as evidence against 'the guidelines'.
*
But this phenomenon is general in the modern world.
Evidence does not merely count for little, it counts for nothing at all.
If the ruling media and bureaucrats want something to happen, then they need no evidence for it (beyond somebody's assertion that it is good, or a made-up anecdote or two about the suffering it may prevent); but if they don't want something to be true, then no amount of evidence is ever enough to change their minds.
*
In an evidence-free world, there is a complete, utter and absolute disconnection between what people believe and do - and what happens as a consequence.
Indeed, it is exactly consequence-iality which is denied - since the basis of being liberated from evidence is that we can never be sure about consequences therefore everything (and I mean everything) about what we do, depends on where we bestow the benefit of the doubt.
*
The evidence-free rulers always give themselves the benefit of the doubt.
If they want to do something, their opponents have to prove that no good can possibly come of it; if they don't want to do something, opponents have to prove that unless they did this precise things the result must necessarily be instant catastrophe.
If they want to assert a fact, opponents have to prove that it cannot be true under any possible combination of circumstances; if they don't want to acknowledge a fact, their opponents have to prove that there is no other possible explanation that could be devised.
In sum, there is always doubt about causality, and doubt about lack of causality, therefore the conclusion depends upon the side where that doubt is bestowed as being most significant.
*
When doubt is defined such as to be universal, and everything depends on which side gets the benefit of that doubt - then there is not room for evidence to play any role in decisions: we have an evidence-free world.
*
The lesson for opponents to Leftism is to forget about evidence in relation to public discourse - because in an evidence-free world the only admissible evidence is evidence against you; and the benefit of the doubt is bestowed on your enemies.
In an evidence-free world where plausibility and common sense count for nothing whatsoever, enemies of the Left are called upon to prove their innocence, prove that they are stating the only conceivable truth and nothing but the state: and prove these beyond any possible, imaginable shadow of doubt.
*
Friday 6 September 2013
William Boyce: a third rate, derivative composer - I like him!
*
William Boyce (1711-1779) was born 26 years after GF Handel, but wrote exactly as if he was Handel; I, at any rate, cannot distinguish the styles.
Boyce would only be placed in the third rank of composers, since he is neither one of the greats (e.g. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven); nor one of the rank below, who include many originators (e.g. Vivaldi, Haydn, Weber) - but he would be among the likes of Locatelli, JC Bach, and Hummel - that is to say composers who retain a lasting but minor place in the concert and recording repertoire.
*
To be exact - the best of Boyce is as good as second rank Handel - which is very good indeed; but he cannot rise to the stratospheric heights of Handel, especially in lyrical mode (examples of the stratosphere: the slow movement of 'Oboe concerto' No. 3 in G min; the solo aria 'Ombra mai fu' from Xerxes; or the trio 'The flocks shall leave the mountains' from Acis and Galatea).
But, despite all this, I like Boyce very much - specifically his 'symphonies' and overtures; and listen to them often, with delight and without getting bored - something which certainly does not apply to the likes of JC Bach, Thomas Arne, or even Charles Avison (for whom I have a special and parochial affection as the best composer from Northumberland).
*
Boyce therefore presents an interesting case study - as an example of just how good you can be when creating within the constraints of a great artist - almost as a pastiche; and the answer is very good indeed.
My preference would be for third rate composers to do what Boyce did, be unoriginal but very good - rather than trying, via formal innovations or 'novelties', to pass themselves off as 'great'/ first rank composers in the way of most 20th century classical musicians and also perhaps some of the earlier romantics such as Lizst, Mahler; or even Richard Strauss in his 'experimental' modes such as Salome, or Verdi in Falstaff.
*
(Parenthetical Explanatory Note: I would put Strauss and Verdi in the second rank, except in their experimental work; when I would drop them down to the fourth rank, due to as acting as cleverly pretentious betrayers of their own genius!)
*
William Boyce (1711-1779) was born 26 years after GF Handel, but wrote exactly as if he was Handel; I, at any rate, cannot distinguish the styles.
Boyce would only be placed in the third rank of composers, since he is neither one of the greats (e.g. Bach, Mozart, Beethoven); nor one of the rank below, who include many originators (e.g. Vivaldi, Haydn, Weber) - but he would be among the likes of Locatelli, JC Bach, and Hummel - that is to say composers who retain a lasting but minor place in the concert and recording repertoire.
*
To be exact - the best of Boyce is as good as second rank Handel - which is very good indeed; but he cannot rise to the stratospheric heights of Handel, especially in lyrical mode (examples of the stratosphere: the slow movement of 'Oboe concerto' No. 3 in G min; the solo aria 'Ombra mai fu' from Xerxes; or the trio 'The flocks shall leave the mountains' from Acis and Galatea).
But, despite all this, I like Boyce very much - specifically his 'symphonies' and overtures; and listen to them often, with delight and without getting bored - something which certainly does not apply to the likes of JC Bach, Thomas Arne, or even Charles Avison (for whom I have a special and parochial affection as the best composer from Northumberland).
*
Boyce therefore presents an interesting case study - as an example of just how good you can be when creating within the constraints of a great artist - almost as a pastiche; and the answer is very good indeed.
My preference would be for third rate composers to do what Boyce did, be unoriginal but very good - rather than trying, via formal innovations or 'novelties', to pass themselves off as 'great'/ first rank composers in the way of most 20th century classical musicians and also perhaps some of the earlier romantics such as Lizst, Mahler; or even Richard Strauss in his 'experimental' modes such as Salome, or Verdi in Falstaff.
*
(Parenthetical Explanatory Note: I would put Strauss and Verdi in the second rank, except in their experimental work; when I would drop them down to the fourth rank, due to as acting as cleverly pretentious betrayers of their own genius!)
*
The Gestalt or Essence of the Bible
*
The Bible cannot legitimately be regarded as a set of inter-linked laws or regulations - but that is how many people read it. The implicit ideal is that a good Biblical Christian should know the whole Bible, sentence by sentence, and fully cross-referenced.
This is double nonsense - in the first place as requiring a cognitive capacity, time and resources grossly beyond the mass of humanity; but also because it is the wrong way to understand the Bible.
The Bible needs to be understood as a whole - that is, perhaps as a Gestalt (the sum being greater than its parts) or more helpfully as having an Essence - more helpfully because 'greater than the sum of its parts' still carries implications that all the parts must first be separately comprehended.
*
If the Bible is regarded as having an Essence, this does not mean that the Essence can be defined: it cannot be defined.
What I mean is that the Christian relationship to the Bible should be one of Love - not of comprehension - the Bible should be loved in the same kind of way we love a person: Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter, Husband, Wife or dear Friend.
*
What do we Love about a person? We love their Essence - that is to say, we do not assemble our love of a person from the individual loves of each of their parts separately considered - but we love that person, love their soul.
Even when loving their Essence, we may not love their parts - we may not love their habits, the way they sniff loudly or snore; we may not love their diseases, their cancers; we do not love their sins - but we do love them.
We do not love their perfection-in-every-detail - nor do we comprehend them - 'other people' are an insoluble mystery.
But we love them in their essential being.
*
That should be a Christian's attitude to the Bible, I think. He should love its Essence.
In this sense the Bible is something with which we seek a relationship - and a relationship is something that can be mentally grasped whole and in a moment.
We are not required to understanding each specific verse considered separately - how could we possibly do this anyway?
Just as our love for a person is not affected by imperfections of incomprehension, love of the Bible should not be affected by an inability to make sense of or believe each bit of the Bible when it has been chopped up and presented for analysis.
*
(...That would be somewhat like taking a camera and photographing each part of a wife's body at different levels of magnification down to the microscopic, and requiring that the husband not only recognize every photograph, but explain every detail of all of these pictures, and the inter-relationship of all of these pictures - and also regard every photograph as perfection, and that he must 'love' each and every one of them!)
*
Fortunately that kind of thing is neither required, nor is it helpful.
I think we should read the Bible in the same spirit as we want to spend time with our loved ones. Of course we want to 'get to know them' better - but that isn't really the point, is it?
We want to spend time with them because we love them.
*
The Bible cannot legitimately be regarded as a set of inter-linked laws or regulations - but that is how many people read it. The implicit ideal is that a good Biblical Christian should know the whole Bible, sentence by sentence, and fully cross-referenced.
This is double nonsense - in the first place as requiring a cognitive capacity, time and resources grossly beyond the mass of humanity; but also because it is the wrong way to understand the Bible.
The Bible needs to be understood as a whole - that is, perhaps as a Gestalt (the sum being greater than its parts) or more helpfully as having an Essence - more helpfully because 'greater than the sum of its parts' still carries implications that all the parts must first be separately comprehended.
*
If the Bible is regarded as having an Essence, this does not mean that the Essence can be defined: it cannot be defined.
What I mean is that the Christian relationship to the Bible should be one of Love - not of comprehension - the Bible should be loved in the same kind of way we love a person: Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter, Husband, Wife or dear Friend.
*
What do we Love about a person? We love their Essence - that is to say, we do not assemble our love of a person from the individual loves of each of their parts separately considered - but we love that person, love their soul.
Even when loving their Essence, we may not love their parts - we may not love their habits, the way they sniff loudly or snore; we may not love their diseases, their cancers; we do not love their sins - but we do love them.
We do not love their perfection-in-every-detail - nor do we comprehend them - 'other people' are an insoluble mystery.
But we love them in their essential being.
*
That should be a Christian's attitude to the Bible, I think. He should love its Essence.
In this sense the Bible is something with which we seek a relationship - and a relationship is something that can be mentally grasped whole and in a moment.
We are not required to understanding each specific verse considered separately - how could we possibly do this anyway?
Just as our love for a person is not affected by imperfections of incomprehension, love of the Bible should not be affected by an inability to make sense of or believe each bit of the Bible when it has been chopped up and presented for analysis.
*
(...That would be somewhat like taking a camera and photographing each part of a wife's body at different levels of magnification down to the microscopic, and requiring that the husband not only recognize every photograph, but explain every detail of all of these pictures, and the inter-relationship of all of these pictures - and also regard every photograph as perfection, and that he must 'love' each and every one of them!)
*
Fortunately that kind of thing is neither required, nor is it helpful.
I think we should read the Bible in the same spirit as we want to spend time with our loved ones. Of course we want to 'get to know them' better - but that isn't really the point, is it?
We want to spend time with them because we love them.
*
The justice of damnation
*
A Christian may well find himself asked to justify damnation in terms which are comprehensible and make sense according to human instincts (gut feelings) about what is just.
I believe this question ought to be answerable; and without recourse either to emphasizing divine incomprehensibility (which argument can be used to justify anything at all); or to doctrines about the utter depravity and undeservingness of Man (which are completely out of harmony with the whole tenor of the Bible, and rapidly lead to insoluble paradoxes).
(Man does not, of course, 'deserve' the marvellous gift and Good News of Christ's work - but it is not legitimate to make the whole matter of salvation/ damnation into the arbitrary workings of Grace - because that is to remove Christianity from the realms of justice and desert.)
Also, this question is so basic to Christianity, that if it cannot be answered truthfully and reasonably accurately, then this is a very serious flaw.
*
So, how can it be just that someone be damned, with all that entails?
Ultimately, if the damned person chooses to put himself beyond the reach of salvation, then it is just that he be damned - not only just, but the possibility of damnation is a necessity for a being with free will: nobody can be forced to choose salvation.
*
This argument has implications: there must be a very strong, indeed total, autonomy of human choice for damnation to be just: the choice to reject salvation must be independent of circumstance, otherwise it would not be fair to damn someone because they lived in bad circumstances.
And total autonomy of choice requires that Man be considerably more god-like than Man is depicted in some Christian traditions.
(Man cannot, as I suggested above, be regarded as utterly weak, utterly sinful - else it would not be just to damn him for making the wrong choices.)
*
If, by contrast, Man is regarded as utterly weak and depraved in his nature (his nature being given him by God); and if all good in Men comes from God; then such a miserable creature as this depiction of Man could not justly be allowed to choose damnation - so if Man is regarded as utterly vile in himself with all Goodness from God, then such a Man is having damnation forced-upon him: which would be unjust since he is punished for that which he cannot affect.
*
In sum - damnation is perfectly easily explicable in terms of Man being a creature with radical autonomy of will, with the intrinsic ability to choose or to reject salvation, which entails that Man has god-like attributes such as intrinsic goodness and judgement.
That makes sense; and is I believe harmonious with the general tenor, the overall spirit or essential core, of Scripture.
*
A Christian may well find himself asked to justify damnation in terms which are comprehensible and make sense according to human instincts (gut feelings) about what is just.
I believe this question ought to be answerable; and without recourse either to emphasizing divine incomprehensibility (which argument can be used to justify anything at all); or to doctrines about the utter depravity and undeservingness of Man (which are completely out of harmony with the whole tenor of the Bible, and rapidly lead to insoluble paradoxes).
(Man does not, of course, 'deserve' the marvellous gift and Good News of Christ's work - but it is not legitimate to make the whole matter of salvation/ damnation into the arbitrary workings of Grace - because that is to remove Christianity from the realms of justice and desert.)
Also, this question is so basic to Christianity, that if it cannot be answered truthfully and reasonably accurately, then this is a very serious flaw.
*
So, how can it be just that someone be damned, with all that entails?
Ultimately, if the damned person chooses to put himself beyond the reach of salvation, then it is just that he be damned - not only just, but the possibility of damnation is a necessity for a being with free will: nobody can be forced to choose salvation.
*
This argument has implications: there must be a very strong, indeed total, autonomy of human choice for damnation to be just: the choice to reject salvation must be independent of circumstance, otherwise it would not be fair to damn someone because they lived in bad circumstances.
And total autonomy of choice requires that Man be considerably more god-like than Man is depicted in some Christian traditions.
(Man cannot, as I suggested above, be regarded as utterly weak, utterly sinful - else it would not be just to damn him for making the wrong choices.)
*
If, by contrast, Man is regarded as utterly weak and depraved in his nature (his nature being given him by God); and if all good in Men comes from God; then such a miserable creature as this depiction of Man could not justly be allowed to choose damnation - so if Man is regarded as utterly vile in himself with all Goodness from God, then such a Man is having damnation forced-upon him: which would be unjust since he is punished for that which he cannot affect.
*
In sum - damnation is perfectly easily explicable in terms of Man being a creature with radical autonomy of will, with the intrinsic ability to choose or to reject salvation, which entails that Man has god-like attributes such as intrinsic goodness and judgement.
That makes sense; and is I believe harmonious with the general tenor, the overall spirit or essential core, of Scripture.
*
Thursday 5 September 2013
Parental choice determines mating/ marriage in most historical societies
*
I have (belatedly) stumbled across the fascinating work of Menelaos Apostolou
http://www.menelaosapostolou.com/
which focuses on the evolutionary significance of the (apparent) fact that in most known historical societies (and indeed in much of the world today) it is parental choice (and not the wishes of participants) that most strongly determines sexual access.
*
For example in "Sexual selection under parental choice in agropastoral societies" Evolution and Human Behaviour 2010; 31; 39-47, he looks across the data on marriage for different types of society such as hunter-gatherer, animal husbandry (herding), agriculture and different mixtures of these - to discover whether marriage was purely arranged by parents, purely by courtship of prospective spouses - a mixture of parent approval confirmed or vetoed by courtship, or vice versa.
Paper available at: http://www.menelaosapostolou.com/papers
*
In all types of societies, the parental choice was a stronger influence on women than men; and the proportion of marriages organized primarily by parental arrangement (with or without courtship) was 65% (agric), 82% (animal), 74% (agric-animal), 54% (mixed H&G) and 56% (H&G).
So, most marriages in all societies are mostly chosen by parents, but this is especially the case for the kind of post-hunter-gatherer, herding and agrarian societies which have increasingly dominated the world over the past ten thousand years, or so.
*
This means there have been approximately 400 generations (at a rate of 4 generations per 100 years) for human evolution to be shaped by the selection factor of extremely significant parental choice - at least in those parts of the world which have experienced agriculture for the longest.
This in turn implies... well many things!
For a start that many of the signals of attractiveness which draw together men and women in the modern world of almost pure courtship (little influenced by parental preferences) are novel forms of selection.
Further, that humans are not 'well evolved' to choose mates for themselves - in the sense that it has apparently been usual to have marriage partners chosen by parents for as far back in human society as we have the capability to measure.
And finally (for now!) that - to put matters another way - it was the possession of physical and psychological traits that appealed to your future in-laws (and not to your future spouse) which was probably most important in the past; and which therefore shaped human physical and psychological evolution - especially over the past several thousand years.
**
Note: Level of punishment for female adultery.
Apostolou also looked at the level of punishment when a woman is discovered to have committed adultery. Three levels were coded: No punishment or light punishment; moderate punishments including beating and divorce; severe punishment such as beating to death.
The results are pretty shocking: No punishment or light punishment were found in only 5 out of 54 of these agropastoral societies; while severe punishments for adultery were found in about two-thirds of these societies - a large majority of 35 out of 54.
It is therefore possible/ probable that significant aspects of heritable human psychology were formed in an evolutionary context with respect to female marital infidelity that was extremely different from now; and that contemporary behaviour may therefore be considered a 'mis-match' phenomenon - perhaps due to ancient psychology operating in a modern context for which it is plausibly functionally maladaptive?
*
I have (belatedly) stumbled across the fascinating work of Menelaos Apostolou
http://www.menelaosapostolou.com/
which focuses on the evolutionary significance of the (apparent) fact that in most known historical societies (and indeed in much of the world today) it is parental choice (and not the wishes of participants) that most strongly determines sexual access.
*
For example in "Sexual selection under parental choice in agropastoral societies" Evolution and Human Behaviour 2010; 31; 39-47, he looks across the data on marriage for different types of society such as hunter-gatherer, animal husbandry (herding), agriculture and different mixtures of these - to discover whether marriage was purely arranged by parents, purely by courtship of prospective spouses - a mixture of parent approval confirmed or vetoed by courtship, or vice versa.
Paper available at: http://www.menelaosapostolou.com/papers
*
In all types of societies, the parental choice was a stronger influence on women than men; and the proportion of marriages organized primarily by parental arrangement (with or without courtship) was 65% (agric), 82% (animal), 74% (agric-animal), 54% (mixed H&G) and 56% (H&G).
So, most marriages in all societies are mostly chosen by parents, but this is especially the case for the kind of post-hunter-gatherer, herding and agrarian societies which have increasingly dominated the world over the past ten thousand years, or so.
*
This means there have been approximately 400 generations (at a rate of 4 generations per 100 years) for human evolution to be shaped by the selection factor of extremely significant parental choice - at least in those parts of the world which have experienced agriculture for the longest.
This in turn implies... well many things!
For a start that many of the signals of attractiveness which draw together men and women in the modern world of almost pure courtship (little influenced by parental preferences) are novel forms of selection.
Further, that humans are not 'well evolved' to choose mates for themselves - in the sense that it has apparently been usual to have marriage partners chosen by parents for as far back in human society as we have the capability to measure.
And finally (for now!) that - to put matters another way - it was the possession of physical and psychological traits that appealed to your future in-laws (and not to your future spouse) which was probably most important in the past; and which therefore shaped human physical and psychological evolution - especially over the past several thousand years.
**
Note: Level of punishment for female adultery.
Apostolou also looked at the level of punishment when a woman is discovered to have committed adultery. Three levels were coded: No punishment or light punishment; moderate punishments including beating and divorce; severe punishment such as beating to death.
The results are pretty shocking: No punishment or light punishment were found in only 5 out of 54 of these agropastoral societies; while severe punishments for adultery were found in about two-thirds of these societies - a large majority of 35 out of 54.
It is therefore possible/ probable that significant aspects of heritable human psychology were formed in an evolutionary context with respect to female marital infidelity that was extremely different from now; and that contemporary behaviour may therefore be considered a 'mis-match' phenomenon - perhaps due to ancient psychology operating in a modern context for which it is plausibly functionally maladaptive?
*
Human sexual dimorphism (fat-free mass difference between men and women) is greater than generally believed - similar to gorillas!
*
Extracted from a review article by David A Puts of Penn State University - "Beauty and the Beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans." Evolution and Human Behavior 2010; 31: 157-175. Words in square brackets [ ] are my editorial additions, three dots ... represents a cut. References are omitted. Bold emphases have been added.
**
Men are larger, stronger, faster, and more physically aggressive than women - and the degree of sexual dimorphism in these traits rivals that of species [such as gorillas and common chimpanzees] with intense male contests.
1. The relatively modest 8% stature [height] dimorphism in humans... and a difference of about 15-20 % in body mass might suggest that male contests are reduced compared with our closest [primate] relatives. However... this is partly because women are unique among primates in having copious fat stores.
2. When fat-free mass is considered, men are 40% heavier... and have 60% more total lean muscle mass than women.
3. Men have 80% greater arm muscle mass and 50% more lower body muscle mass...
4. ...The sex difference in upper-body muscle mass in humans is similar to the sex difference in fat free mass in gorillas..., [which are] the most sexually dimorphic of all living primates. (...)
**
Extracted from a review article by David A Puts of Penn State University - "Beauty and the Beast: mechanisms of sexual selection in humans." Evolution and Human Behavior 2010; 31: 157-175. Words in square brackets [ ] are my editorial additions, three dots ... represents a cut. References are omitted. Bold emphases have been added.
**
Men are larger, stronger, faster, and more physically aggressive than women - and the degree of sexual dimorphism in these traits rivals that of species [such as gorillas and common chimpanzees] with intense male contests.
1. The relatively modest 8% stature [height] dimorphism in humans... and a difference of about 15-20 % in body mass might suggest that male contests are reduced compared with our closest [primate] relatives. However... this is partly because women are unique among primates in having copious fat stores.
2. When fat-free mass is considered, men are 40% heavier... and have 60% more total lean muscle mass than women.
3. Men have 80% greater arm muscle mass and 50% more lower body muscle mass...
4. ...The sex difference in upper-body muscle mass in humans is similar to the sex difference in fat free mass in gorillas..., [which are] the most sexually dimorphic of all living primates. (...)
**
Percentage shares of world populations under political control of civilizations 1900-2025
*
From the Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P Huntington, 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
Extracted from Table 4.3. 'Pop' refers to world population total in Billions rounded to one decimal place. Other numbers rounded to nearest integer. * refers to projections.
Year Pop West Islam Sinic Afric
1900 1.6 44 4 19 0
1920 1.9 48 2 17 1
1971 3.7 14 13 23 6
1995 5.8 13 16 24 10
2025* 8.5 10 19 21 14
This Table had a profound influence on my thinking - a case of scales dropping from eyes...
Of course, since the book was written 18 years ago, the precise estimates for 2025 have changed - but the direction, speed and severity of changes in the size and composition of the world population over the past century are stunning - and presumably unprecedented in world history.
But, naturally, nobody talks about this stuff.
*
From the Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P Huntington, 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington
Extracted from Table 4.3. 'Pop' refers to world population total in Billions rounded to one decimal place. Other numbers rounded to nearest integer. * refers to projections.
Year Pop West Islam Sinic Afric
1900 1.6 44 4 19 0
1920 1.9 48 2 17 1
1971 3.7 14 13 23 6
1995 5.8 13 16 24 10
2025* 8.5 10 19 21 14
This Table had a profound influence on my thinking - a case of scales dropping from eyes...
Of course, since the book was written 18 years ago, the precise estimates for 2025 have changed - but the direction, speed and severity of changes in the size and composition of the world population over the past century are stunning - and presumably unprecedented in world history.
But, naturally, nobody talks about this stuff.
*
The Left isn't winning by having good arguments - it wins because people are punished for arguing against the Left
*
This is one of the things I find most frustrating, and increasingly frustrating: not so much that it happens, but that so many people cannot see that it is happening.
An example is research into intelligence, specifically into the combination of the inheritance of intelligence and group intelligence differences.
The FACT is that people presenting arguments or evidence to show differences in heritable intelligence between groups, have been severely punished by Leftists since the mid-1960s.
To put in mildly, this state of affairs severely distorts both research and public discourse, with incredibly far-reaching maladaptive consequences for social policies; yet, people do not take account of this distortion, or assume that they can readily correct for it.
*
The same applies to arguments about sexual orientation, immigration, poverty, the redefinition of marriage... the list is a long one.
Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say 'The Left' I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.
While at the same time denying that they are doing this! And being believed!!
*
The consequence is on one side to sustain a truly deplorable state of dishonesty, and on the other side a near total lack of awareness of this state of dishonesty.
There have been plenty of examples of coercive repression of opposition, indeed something of the sort is necessary to stable government - yet has there ever before been a situation where so many people are unaware of the coercion, deny the coercion, or think that it doesn't make any significant difference, or that they personally can easily 'see through' the dense cloud of swirling lies which surrounds them?
*
What can be concluded?
Our society is far more corrupt than people realize - why wouldn't it be? What's to stop it? But just how corrupt it is impossible to know, even approximately, since any 'evidence' consists of lies built upon lies.
Our society is far less smart than people realize, because good arguments are punished and demonized so bad arguments (or no arguments at all, but merely faked moral outrage/ scapegoat hatred) wins vital arguments by default.
*
In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars, who get dumber and more dishonest every day - who think they are smart reality-perceivers because they are talking so loud and fast, and because nobody argues against them except disgusting losers - and this continues because the dumb liars rule a world inhabited by short-termist secular hedonists who do not have any reason to care whether or not the above description is true; since they regard truth as whatever is expedient en route to happiness, and reality as something socially constructed and open-endedly re-definable.
*
This is one of the things I find most frustrating, and increasingly frustrating: not so much that it happens, but that so many people cannot see that it is happening.
An example is research into intelligence, specifically into the combination of the inheritance of intelligence and group intelligence differences.
The FACT is that people presenting arguments or evidence to show differences in heritable intelligence between groups, have been severely punished by Leftists since the mid-1960s.
To put in mildly, this state of affairs severely distorts both research and public discourse, with incredibly far-reaching maladaptive consequences for social policies; yet, people do not take account of this distortion, or assume that they can readily correct for it.
*
The same applies to arguments about sexual orientation, immigration, poverty, the redefinition of marriage... the list is a long one.
Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say 'The Left' I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.
While at the same time denying that they are doing this! And being believed!!
*
The consequence is on one side to sustain a truly deplorable state of dishonesty, and on the other side a near total lack of awareness of this state of dishonesty.
There have been plenty of examples of coercive repression of opposition, indeed something of the sort is necessary to stable government - yet has there ever before been a situation where so many people are unaware of the coercion, deny the coercion, or think that it doesn't make any significant difference, or that they personally can easily 'see through' the dense cloud of swirling lies which surrounds them?
*
What can be concluded?
Our society is far more corrupt than people realize - why wouldn't it be? What's to stop it? But just how corrupt it is impossible to know, even approximately, since any 'evidence' consists of lies built upon lies.
Our society is far less smart than people realize, because good arguments are punished and demonized so bad arguments (or no arguments at all, but merely faked moral outrage/ scapegoat hatred) wins vital arguments by default.
*
In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars, who get dumber and more dishonest every day - who think they are smart reality-perceivers because they are talking so loud and fast, and because nobody argues against them except disgusting losers - and this continues because the dumb liars rule a world inhabited by short-termist secular hedonists who do not have any reason to care whether or not the above description is true; since they regard truth as whatever is expedient en route to happiness, and reality as something socially constructed and open-endedly re-definable.
*
Wednesday 4 September 2013
The 'turning' of heroic literature
*
One of the primary functions of literature, of art generally, has been to priovide examples of heroism: of courage and endurance in a good cause.
One example is the Old Testament, which can function as a series of cameos of heroic virtue in the face of persecution, corruption and a multitude of disadvantages. The way I remember the OT from my childhood is, indeed, in exactly this way - David and Goliath, Sampson, Daniel... heroic figures. (There are better examples, of course, but these are the ones I remember.)
*
The same applies to the Book of Mormon, and indeed this line of thought was stimulated by an e-mail from commenter 'MC' who is an active Mormon. He described how the BoM functions to provide a set of heroic examples upon which modern Mormons can model themselves.
When I again looked through the BoM, I could see that this was indeed something of a Key to understanding the special role or function of the BoM in the LDS church: more explicitly than the OT, and in greater number and with more variations on the theme, the Book of Mormon provides one account after another of individual courage and endurance in faith; in face of recurrent apostasy, decadence and violence - and thus a spectrum of hero models, from whom the modern Mormon may gain inspiration and resolution.
*
In the increasingly secular environment of the twentieth century, this role has devolved from scripture to fiction, and especially to the 'fantasy' genre of which Tolkien is the greatest exemplar.
I myself have used characters and situations from Lord of the Rings in order to model and clarify situations in life, and from whom to gain inspiration.
The Harry Potter series is a more recent example - and much of the appeal of HP comes from its many and vivid depictions of self-sacrificing heroism.
*
Scripture and fantasy are traditional genres, and the atheistic, radical, progressive opposition can only parasitize upon heroic literature - as when the heroes of Carol Kendall's (excellent) Minnipins/ Gammage Cup story are depicted rather in the fashion of sixties counter-culturalists with their unconventional dress, poeticizing and abstract painting; nonetheless, their heroism is in service of traditional 'goods' and made possible by the eccentric reactionary Walter the Earl.
*
But despite its fundamental rootedness in the traditional, and despite its quasi-scriptural basis; heroic fantasy literature can be turned against traditional values, as happened when Tolkien was adopted by the sixties counter-culture, and interpreted to be in favour of drop-out drug culture, the sexual revolution, and extreme Leftist utopianism generally.
*
The same has now happened with Harry Potter, but in a much nastier fashion given the modern environment of media-spun political correctness, with an organization called the Harry Potter Alliance - which bureaucratically harnesses Potter-mania to all the latest hot-button causes of modern Leftism, with Potterphiles deployed as funders of radical pressure groups - and thereby 'turns' heroic idealism from defence of tradition into subversion of The Good.
*
As with the Left's appropriation of Tolkien, the HPA works by ignoring the deep Christian structure of the novels, and focusing on superficial aspects which can be channeled into 'supporting' a pre-existing agenda.
But the HP novels are much more ambivalent about tradition/ Leftism/ the sexual revolution than is Lord of the Rings.
With her post-Potter works and public persona, JK Rowling herself seems to have turned against the deep Christian and traditionalist structure of the Harry Potter books, and embraced all the distinctive concerns of modern Leftism.
*
The turning of Harry Potter shows the way that Leftism works. It was made easier by the fact that the deep Christianity of the Harry Potter books is - while real and powerful, as depicted by John 'The Hogwarts Professor' Granger's analyses - covert and coded; while the more Leftist concerns are much more obvious: for instance the Nazi-like 'racism' of Voldemort and the 'pure blood' death eaters.
Thus makes it easier to invert the meaning of HP; but in fact, such is the power of the mass media to impose its own categories (by selection, emphasis, diversion, invention, shock) - that even real life personal experience can now be reframed to mean its opposite: this is a matter of daily, headline routine.
Modern people believe what they are told by the mass media; not what they know by experience: we are tabulae rasae, 'hollow men', the 'men without chests' - each night forgetting everything; each morning waiting to be re-filled by the latest media content.
So the potential benefits of heroic literature are quite simply turned-against their traditional and Christian basis.
Perhaps the LDS church has been fortunate that the Book of Mormon is off-the-radar, being considered as beneath the notice of the mainstream mass media culture; which has not therefore condescended to 'reframe' its stories of heroic virtue into meaning the opposite of their real meaning; a process which has, of course, long since happened with the Bible.
*
One of the primary functions of literature, of art generally, has been to priovide examples of heroism: of courage and endurance in a good cause.
One example is the Old Testament, which can function as a series of cameos of heroic virtue in the face of persecution, corruption and a multitude of disadvantages. The way I remember the OT from my childhood is, indeed, in exactly this way - David and Goliath, Sampson, Daniel... heroic figures. (There are better examples, of course, but these are the ones I remember.)
*
The same applies to the Book of Mormon, and indeed this line of thought was stimulated by an e-mail from commenter 'MC' who is an active Mormon. He described how the BoM functions to provide a set of heroic examples upon which modern Mormons can model themselves.
When I again looked through the BoM, I could see that this was indeed something of a Key to understanding the special role or function of the BoM in the LDS church: more explicitly than the OT, and in greater number and with more variations on the theme, the Book of Mormon provides one account after another of individual courage and endurance in faith; in face of recurrent apostasy, decadence and violence - and thus a spectrum of hero models, from whom the modern Mormon may gain inspiration and resolution.
*
In the increasingly secular environment of the twentieth century, this role has devolved from scripture to fiction, and especially to the 'fantasy' genre of which Tolkien is the greatest exemplar.
I myself have used characters and situations from Lord of the Rings in order to model and clarify situations in life, and from whom to gain inspiration.
The Harry Potter series is a more recent example - and much of the appeal of HP comes from its many and vivid depictions of self-sacrificing heroism.
*
Scripture and fantasy are traditional genres, and the atheistic, radical, progressive opposition can only parasitize upon heroic literature - as when the heroes of Carol Kendall's (excellent) Minnipins/ Gammage Cup story are depicted rather in the fashion of sixties counter-culturalists with their unconventional dress, poeticizing and abstract painting; nonetheless, their heroism is in service of traditional 'goods' and made possible by the eccentric reactionary Walter the Earl.
*
But despite its fundamental rootedness in the traditional, and despite its quasi-scriptural basis; heroic fantasy literature can be turned against traditional values, as happened when Tolkien was adopted by the sixties counter-culture, and interpreted to be in favour of drop-out drug culture, the sexual revolution, and extreme Leftist utopianism generally.
*
The same has now happened with Harry Potter, but in a much nastier fashion given the modern environment of media-spun political correctness, with an organization called the Harry Potter Alliance - which bureaucratically harnesses Potter-mania to all the latest hot-button causes of modern Leftism, with Potterphiles deployed as funders of radical pressure groups - and thereby 'turns' heroic idealism from defence of tradition into subversion of The Good.
*
As with the Left's appropriation of Tolkien, the HPA works by ignoring the deep Christian structure of the novels, and focusing on superficial aspects which can be channeled into 'supporting' a pre-existing agenda.
But the HP novels are much more ambivalent about tradition/ Leftism/ the sexual revolution than is Lord of the Rings.
With her post-Potter works and public persona, JK Rowling herself seems to have turned against the deep Christian and traditionalist structure of the Harry Potter books, and embraced all the distinctive concerns of modern Leftism.
*
The turning of Harry Potter shows the way that Leftism works. It was made easier by the fact that the deep Christianity of the Harry Potter books is - while real and powerful, as depicted by John 'The Hogwarts Professor' Granger's analyses - covert and coded; while the more Leftist concerns are much more obvious: for instance the Nazi-like 'racism' of Voldemort and the 'pure blood' death eaters.
Thus makes it easier to invert the meaning of HP; but in fact, such is the power of the mass media to impose its own categories (by selection, emphasis, diversion, invention, shock) - that even real life personal experience can now be reframed to mean its opposite: this is a matter of daily, headline routine.
Modern people believe what they are told by the mass media; not what they know by experience: we are tabulae rasae, 'hollow men', the 'men without chests' - each night forgetting everything; each morning waiting to be re-filled by the latest media content.
So the potential benefits of heroic literature are quite simply turned-against their traditional and Christian basis.
Perhaps the LDS church has been fortunate that the Book of Mormon is off-the-radar, being considered as beneath the notice of the mainstream mass media culture; which has not therefore condescended to 'reframe' its stories of heroic virtue into meaning the opposite of their real meaning; a process which has, of course, long since happened with the Bible.
*
Tuesday 3 September 2013
Attitudes and the Thought Police: opponents of Leftism cannot be subversive
*
New Leftism, post-mid-sixties Leftism, has been about shaping 'attitudes' - and this leads directly to the Thought Police
For Leftism it is not sufficient to go along with the ideology, because Leftists know from their own behaviour that this leaves the door wide-open to subversion.
*
Leftists work strategically by feigning compliance to religion, to traditional morality, to beauty and truth; but their private attitudes conflict with with all these, and they work in a thousand - mostly indirect (hence deniable) - ways to subvert, mock, undermine, eventually invert religion, traditional morality, truth and beauty.
*
This is what Leftists do - and they suppose that this is what their opponents do - and this is why Leftists always end-up adopting Thought Police tactics, and persecuting people on the basis of their inferred attitudes - but they are wrong.
*
They are wrong because subversion is destruction, and destruction only works in one direction.
The opponents of Leftism - the true opponents - are constructive, not subversive; builders not destroyers; makers not wreckers.
The opponents of Leftism cannot use subversion, because there is nothing in Leftism for them to subvert: or, rather, subverting actually-existing Leftism only leads to more extreme and abstract Leftism.
*
So the true opponents of Leftism cannot be strategically and covertly subversive in the way of Leftists; and their private attitudes are irrelevant to their effectiveness; because (unlike subversion) the process of construction, building, making must be, can only be, explicit.
*
This means that the Leftist focus on correct attitudes, and the use of Thought Police tactics to enforce the required attitudes, approaches fairly close to being pure evil - since it is unnecessary, ineffective, a projection - hence in practice an excuse for envy, hatred, cruelty and open-ended destruction of The Good, wherever it may be found or merely suspected to exist.
Of course, this does not in any way serve the interests of Leftists, since they will themselves be consumed by the chaos they foment: but that fact merely confirms (for a Christian) the demonic motivations of Leftism: a hatred of humanity which aims at nothing short of universal and permanent misery.
*
New Leftism, post-mid-sixties Leftism, has been about shaping 'attitudes' - and this leads directly to the Thought Police
For Leftism it is not sufficient to go along with the ideology, because Leftists know from their own behaviour that this leaves the door wide-open to subversion.
*
Leftists work strategically by feigning compliance to religion, to traditional morality, to beauty and truth; but their private attitudes conflict with with all these, and they work in a thousand - mostly indirect (hence deniable) - ways to subvert, mock, undermine, eventually invert religion, traditional morality, truth and beauty.
*
This is what Leftists do - and they suppose that this is what their opponents do - and this is why Leftists always end-up adopting Thought Police tactics, and persecuting people on the basis of their inferred attitudes - but they are wrong.
*
They are wrong because subversion is destruction, and destruction only works in one direction.
The opponents of Leftism - the true opponents - are constructive, not subversive; builders not destroyers; makers not wreckers.
The opponents of Leftism cannot use subversion, because there is nothing in Leftism for them to subvert: or, rather, subverting actually-existing Leftism only leads to more extreme and abstract Leftism.
*
So the true opponents of Leftism cannot be strategically and covertly subversive in the way of Leftists; and their private attitudes are irrelevant to their effectiveness; because (unlike subversion) the process of construction, building, making must be, can only be, explicit.
*
This means that the Leftist focus on correct attitudes, and the use of Thought Police tactics to enforce the required attitudes, approaches fairly close to being pure evil - since it is unnecessary, ineffective, a projection - hence in practice an excuse for envy, hatred, cruelty and open-ended destruction of The Good, wherever it may be found or merely suspected to exist.
Of course, this does not in any way serve the interests of Leftists, since they will themselves be consumed by the chaos they foment: but that fact merely confirms (for a Christian) the demonic motivations of Leftism: a hatred of humanity which aims at nothing short of universal and permanent misery.
*
The dangers of humility under modern conditions
*
Humility is a necessary virtue for Christians, but cannot be a first step towards becoming a Christian.
Indeed humility in the absence of Christianity may be extremely dangerous under modern conditions.
*
In a world of moral inversions, to be humble may mean to accept the world's evaluations - because to reject them would seem arrogant, prideful.
When the world's evaluations are evil, humility may accept evil, submit to evil - or at least go-along-with evil.
*
Why? Because humility is relational - we can only be humble in relation to something, or to someone.
Whether humility is good or evil depends on who we are humble towards.
*
So, it is dangerous, it is counter-productive, it is in effect anti-Christian to call for greater humility in the absence of Christian faith.
And humility cannot be the first step for a modern Christian convert.
*
Humility is a necessary virtue for Christians, but cannot be a first step towards becoming a Christian.
Indeed humility in the absence of Christianity may be extremely dangerous under modern conditions.
*
In a world of moral inversions, to be humble may mean to accept the world's evaluations - because to reject them would seem arrogant, prideful.
When the world's evaluations are evil, humility may accept evil, submit to evil - or at least go-along-with evil.
*
Why? Because humility is relational - we can only be humble in relation to something, or to someone.
Whether humility is good or evil depends on who we are humble towards.
*
So, it is dangerous, it is counter-productive, it is in effect anti-Christian to call for greater humility in the absence of Christian faith.
And humility cannot be the first step for a modern Christian convert.
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)