*
Traditional Mainstream Christians (Protestants and Catholics) tend to insist that in a marriage the wife should "submit" to her husband - that specific word submit is used a lot.
By contrast, Mormons (who are - let's be honest - the experts on marriage and family in the modern world, and who are free-er of the taint of liberalism/ leftism/ feminism than most other Christian denominations) say the following:
By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families.
Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.
In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.
Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
From The Family - a proclamation to the world:
http://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation
*
I think Mormons are absolutely correct to emphasize complementarity of distinct domains within the 'standard' marriage rather than dominance-submission.
In any specific domain one or other sex has the responsibility; but neither has overall dominance; neither is overall required to submit.
(Complementarity of husband and wife is, of course, a fundamental part of Mormon theology; in that husband and wife both need each other for optimal theosis and progression to the highest Heaven or celestial kingdom. Also, note the important supplementary passage on the contingent need for individual adaptation.)
*
And this difference within marriage corresponds to my observation that Mormon women have a large, important and distinct role in the LDS church; while, by contrast, among traditional Mainstream Christians (such as conservative evangelicals) women typically have a very subordinate, less essential and indistinct role in the church - defined by exclusion and patronage - rather than an 'of right' complementarity.
Both the CJCLDS and traditional Mainstream Christians are patriarchal religions - but to formulate this in terms of 'submission' creates (I believe) a false, and sometimes hazardous, tendency for Christianity to collapse into the pattern of its most formidable rival - a patterns which is goes against the grain of Christianity's fundamental nature.
This tendency of traditional mainstream Christianity institutionally to marginalize women can be resisted, and often it has been and is resisted; but the tendency remains because it is theologically rooted.
*
NOTE: In the above passage from the Proclamation, I dislike the use of the word 'equal' because equal, in practice, gets to mean sameness; and the sexes are not the same - they just are complementary.
**
FURTHER NOTE: The mistake people make in this (and other) matters regarding complementarity is that they look for symmetry. In fact, complementarity is necessary precisely because of the lack of symmetry.
The primary thing about family (for Mormons) is motherhood, which can be defined quickly, simply, single word. Fatherhood is secondary and needs more words to describe. Women are (in essence) mothers, (worthy) men are priests - but motherhood and priesthood are not symmetrical. Very obviously not!
(For Mormons) Healthy women just are mothers, but men must be worthy to be priests. In the church the priesthood is primary, in the family motherhood is primary - but not in the same way. The priesthood and Relief society (the women's organization) are complementary in the church, but not symmetrical - and the priesthood is primary.
In Catholic Christianity celibacy is primary, men are primary - because men are priests. Motherhood comes below celibacy, and celibate female religious are not necessary. The church is necessary for salvation - but only men are necessary to the church: therefore women are not (religiously) necessary to Catholics.
In traditional Protestant denominations, the family comes above celibacy, but men dominate the family and the church alike, in a symmetrical fashion; because men are always the leaders and women must always submit (whatever the circumstances). In religious terms, men and women are individuals and equivalent in value. Women are not religiously necessary, but neither are men, except in the church - but (for Protestants) the church is not necessary.
And in Christianity's most formidable rival something similar prevails: all men submit to God, men have duties of worship, all women submit to all men, women are not religiously necessary.
Only in Mormonism are both men and women necessary and also the church necessary; but not to salvation, only to the higher levels of theosis.
***
Thursday 23 January 2014
Why is intelligence seen as a gift, but hard work is praised as a virtue?
*
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/reliable-but-dumb-or-smart-but-slapdash.html
Edited summary:
The psychological attributes of intelligence and personality are usually seen as being quite distinct in nature. Higher intelligence is usually regarded a ‘gift’, bestowed mostly by heredity, or by favourable conditions.
But personality or ‘character’ is morally evaluated by others, and conscientiousness is praised as a virtue on the assumption that it is mostly a consequence of choice and effort.
So a teacher is more likely to praise a child for their highly Conscientious personality (high ‘C’) – an ability to take the long view, work hard with self-discipline and persevere in the face of difficulty – than for possessing high IQ. And even in science, where high intelligence is greatly valued, it is seen as being more virtuous to be a reliable and steady worker.
Yet it is probable that both IQ and personality traits such as high Conscientiousness are about-equally inherited ‘gifts’. Measured heritability of both are in excess of 0.5. But if imprecision of definition and measurement and random accidents were fully-eliminated from the analysis - heredity for both intelligence and personality would probably be seen as nearly total.
Rankings of both IQ and C are generally stable throughout life (although absolute levels of both will typically increase throughout the lifespan, with IQ peaking in late-teens and C probably peaking in middle age).
Furthermore, high IQ is not just an ability to be used only as required; higher IQ also carries various behavioural predispositions – as reflected in the positive correlation with the personality trait of Openness to Experience; and characteristically ‘left-wing’ or ‘enlightened’ socio-political values among high IQ individuals.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html
However, IQ is ‘effortless’ while high-C emerges mainly in tough situations where exceptional effort is required. So we probably tend to regard personality in moral terms because this fits with a social system that provides incentives for virtuous behaviour (including Conscientiousness).
In conclusion, high IQ should probably more often be regarded in morally evaluative terms because it is associated with behavioural predispositions; while Conscientiousness should probably be interpreted with more emphasis on its being a gift or natural ability.
In particular, people born with high levels of Conscientiousness are very fortunate in modern societies, since they are usually well-rewarded for this aptitude; while people with low Conscientiousness may find it very hard to hold down any kind of job - even when they are of extremely high intelligence.
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/essential-reading-for-iq-scholars-grady.html
This includes modern science and academia, where Conscientiousness is being selected-for much more more rigorously than IQ. The modern 'intellectual elite' is selected to be hard-working, productive, obedient to group norms - but it is not especially bright.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/do-elite-us-colleges-choose-personality.html
Indeed, taken overall, those ‘gifted’ with high Conscientiousness are much luckier than the very intelligent – because there are far more and better jobs for reliable and hard-working people (even if they are relatively ‘dumb’) than for smart people with undependable personalities.
*
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/reliable-but-dumb-or-smart-but-slapdash.html
Edited summary:
The psychological attributes of intelligence and personality are usually seen as being quite distinct in nature. Higher intelligence is usually regarded a ‘gift’, bestowed mostly by heredity, or by favourable conditions.
But personality or ‘character’ is morally evaluated by others, and conscientiousness is praised as a virtue on the assumption that it is mostly a consequence of choice and effort.
So a teacher is more likely to praise a child for their highly Conscientious personality (high ‘C’) – an ability to take the long view, work hard with self-discipline and persevere in the face of difficulty – than for possessing high IQ. And even in science, where high intelligence is greatly valued, it is seen as being more virtuous to be a reliable and steady worker.
Yet it is probable that both IQ and personality traits such as high Conscientiousness are about-equally inherited ‘gifts’. Measured heritability of both are in excess of 0.5. But if imprecision of definition and measurement and random accidents were fully-eliminated from the analysis - heredity for both intelligence and personality would probably be seen as nearly total.
Rankings of both IQ and C are generally stable throughout life (although absolute levels of both will typically increase throughout the lifespan, with IQ peaking in late-teens and C probably peaking in middle age).
Furthermore, high IQ is not just an ability to be used only as required; higher IQ also carries various behavioural predispositions – as reflected in the positive correlation with the personality trait of Openness to Experience; and characteristically ‘left-wing’ or ‘enlightened’ socio-political values among high IQ individuals.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html
However, IQ is ‘effortless’ while high-C emerges mainly in tough situations where exceptional effort is required. So we probably tend to regard personality in moral terms because this fits with a social system that provides incentives for virtuous behaviour (including Conscientiousness).
In conclusion, high IQ should probably more often be regarded in morally evaluative terms because it is associated with behavioural predispositions; while Conscientiousness should probably be interpreted with more emphasis on its being a gift or natural ability.
In particular, people born with high levels of Conscientiousness are very fortunate in modern societies, since they are usually well-rewarded for this aptitude; while people with low Conscientiousness may find it very hard to hold down any kind of job - even when they are of extremely high intelligence.
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/essential-reading-for-iq-scholars-grady.html
This includes modern science and academia, where Conscientiousness is being selected-for much more more rigorously than IQ. The modern 'intellectual elite' is selected to be hard-working, productive, obedient to group norms - but it is not especially bright.
http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/do-elite-us-colleges-choose-personality.html
Indeed, taken overall, those ‘gifted’ with high Conscientiousness are much luckier than the very intelligent – because there are far more and better jobs for reliable and hard-working people (even if they are relatively ‘dumb’) than for smart people with undependable personalities.
*
Wednesday 22 January 2014
The conflict between good and bad Men, versus the conflict between Good and Evil.
*
Wise words from TS Eliot's Introduction to Charles Williams's novel: All Hallows Eve (1945)
The conflict which is the theme of every one of Williams's novels, is not merely the conflict between good and bad men, in the usual sense....
He sees the struggle between Good and Evil as carried on, more or less blindly, by men and women who are often only the instruments of higher or lower powers, but who always have the freedom to choose to which powers they will submit themselves.
*
Wise words from TS Eliot's Introduction to Charles Williams's novel: All Hallows Eve (1945)
The conflict which is the theme of every one of Williams's novels, is not merely the conflict between good and bad men, in the usual sense....
He sees the struggle between Good and Evil as carried on, more or less blindly, by men and women who are often only the instruments of higher or lower powers, but who always have the freedom to choose to which powers they will submit themselves.
*
Raising young women well in the modern world
*
The Mormon record of more marriages, younger marriages, stronger marriages, and larger families isn't something that 'just happens' but a consequence of a vast amount of work from a lot of people - as can be seen from Adam Greenwood's summary of the LDS 'system' for raising young women against the grain of modernity.
http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/01/21/the-young-womens-program-of-the-mormon-church
*
The Mormon record of more marriages, younger marriages, stronger marriages, and larger families isn't something that 'just happens' but a consequence of a vast amount of work from a lot of people - as can be seen from Adam Greenwood's summary of the LDS 'system' for raising young women against the grain of modernity.
http://www.jrganymede.com/2014/01/21/the-young-womens-program-of-the-mormon-church
*
Tuesday 21 January 2014
Disappointed with modernity - we have wasted our opportunities, perverted our opportunities
*
I have this strong feeling, which goes way back into my early teen years - that I was very lucky to live in a period of peace, abundance, comfort; and that the existence of this 'safety net' this gave me great opportunities to strive to do the best work of which I was capable: to aim high, be idealistic, take the higher risk options.
As an atheist and an intellectual, I saw these opportunities in William Morrisite, or Emersonian terms of enhancement of the arts, architecture, natural beauty, the landscape; self-education; science and philosophy; dignity and creativity of labour; self-sufficiency; knowledge and participation in poetry and literature; establishing wholesome and free social arrangements - and the like.
And I have always been terribly disappointed that very few people even tried to do so.
*
Instead there was a societal obsession with material accumulation, with getting ever-more of what they already had in abundance.
Even worse, there was the whole world of 'fashion' - the mass willingness to be manipulated in pursuit of one manufactured triviality after another.
*
For example, when I first got a permanent job as a university lecturer, I recognized that I had one of the most secure positions in one of the most secure societies in history - and that this meant I had could embark on long term projects in scholarship, writing and research and scholarship ; that my secure position made it easy stand aside from trends; that I could be a model of teaching and scientific integrity and it was virtually impossible for my employer to sack me for it!
But in general colleagues refused to acknowledge the basic privilege and security of their position, and persisted in talking as if they could be thrown out into destitution and starvation at any moment - and therefore they had to go-along-with whatever fashion, trend and politically-driven lunacies and lies were floating around the university - and work at terribly unambitious scholarly and research projects that were neither useful nor radical - but merely aspired to be microscopic incremental increases in what were already trivial and irrelevant backwaters of tedium.
*
I remembered something similar from my medical student days. In general, university was a great opportunity - but we had to work hard, do exams and so on. Then, at the end of the academic year there was this wonderful period of about a week after the exams were over and we were supposed to hang about and await the results just in case we were required for an additional 'viva' examination (for distinction or to determine pass-fail).
To me this was a great opportunity to do all those things which I hadn't been able to do during term - one memorable time, three of us listened to Wagner's Ring opera cycle over four consecutive days.
But instead of making the most of college without work, most of the students went back home and took summer jobs the instant that exams were over - they didn't need the money, they certainly could afford to do what they were supposed to do (await the results) - but they simply could not cope with the void of not having classes and exams. They had nothing to do.
*
And the big picture of society at large was exactly the same. Prosperity came, Peace came, Comfort was established; but society had no idea what to do with it except deny that it had come or else dissipate it in utter triviality.
I noticed that people were mostly doing things to occupy their minds and have something to talk- (boast-, joke-, get angry-) about; that society was increasingly about filling-in-time.
*
For a long time I waited for this to change - and for people to acknowledge the possibilities and opportunities.
And after a while it became clear that this was not going to happen - but instead as the mass media developed and grew, society was developing truly transcendent capacities for passivity of will and dissipation of time.
*
I cannot think of a single modern society which used well the opportunities given by the establishment (for a few generations) of peace, prosperity and comfort.
In particular, all the modern societies used PP&C to reject religion - not to enhance it; and within religion, all the mainstream Western religions were corrupted by PP&C, became less spiritual, less devout, more worldly.
We did not use PP&C: IT USED US.
*
(The only exception that I know of is the Mormon church in the US; which used prosperity to become more devout and for the most prosperous members to grow the church by natural increase (large families) and missionary work. This was a rare, tremendous, yet un-recognized, achievement - actually to take advantage of PPP&C, rather than be corrupted and destroyed by it.)
*
Well, it is now clear for those with eyes to see that PP&C are not the natural state of all right-thinking persons - but an unearned privilege inherited from the genius and hard work past generations; and now we have become so far advanced in dissipation they cannot long continue.
But it is terribly disappointing to me that our civilization found nothing better to do with its vast opportunities than watch tv, participate in chit-chat, take foreign holidays, buy ever more new cars and clothes and gadgets; and occupy our minds with manufactured news, seduction and pornography, celebrity gossip, the pursuit and promotion of intoxication; cynically-contrived point-and-click sentimentality; and idle malice and hatred (aka politics).
*
So much did we desire these things - or so weakly did we reject them - that we have as a society eroded and all-but overthrown (to the best of our ability) the only things that might have compensated - marriage and family. These have been picked-at, disrespected and mocked, weakened, corrupted, inverted.
The direction that modernity has channelled its opportunities is utterly disgusting; compounded by the refusal to admit what we have done.
*
My interpretation?
With Man it is less important that he has nothing-to-stop-him doing something than that he is motivated to do it.
And that Man without religion is a pitiful thing; en masse he is a despicable thing.
*
I have this strong feeling, which goes way back into my early teen years - that I was very lucky to live in a period of peace, abundance, comfort; and that the existence of this 'safety net' this gave me great opportunities to strive to do the best work of which I was capable: to aim high, be idealistic, take the higher risk options.
As an atheist and an intellectual, I saw these opportunities in William Morrisite, or Emersonian terms of enhancement of the arts, architecture, natural beauty, the landscape; self-education; science and philosophy; dignity and creativity of labour; self-sufficiency; knowledge and participation in poetry and literature; establishing wholesome and free social arrangements - and the like.
And I have always been terribly disappointed that very few people even tried to do so.
*
Instead there was a societal obsession with material accumulation, with getting ever-more of what they already had in abundance.
Even worse, there was the whole world of 'fashion' - the mass willingness to be manipulated in pursuit of one manufactured triviality after another.
*
For example, when I first got a permanent job as a university lecturer, I recognized that I had one of the most secure positions in one of the most secure societies in history - and that this meant I had could embark on long term projects in scholarship, writing and research and scholarship ; that my secure position made it easy stand aside from trends; that I could be a model of teaching and scientific integrity and it was virtually impossible for my employer to sack me for it!
But in general colleagues refused to acknowledge the basic privilege and security of their position, and persisted in talking as if they could be thrown out into destitution and starvation at any moment - and therefore they had to go-along-with whatever fashion, trend and politically-driven lunacies and lies were floating around the university - and work at terribly unambitious scholarly and research projects that were neither useful nor radical - but merely aspired to be microscopic incremental increases in what were already trivial and irrelevant backwaters of tedium.
*
I remembered something similar from my medical student days. In general, university was a great opportunity - but we had to work hard, do exams and so on. Then, at the end of the academic year there was this wonderful period of about a week after the exams were over and we were supposed to hang about and await the results just in case we were required for an additional 'viva' examination (for distinction or to determine pass-fail).
To me this was a great opportunity to do all those things which I hadn't been able to do during term - one memorable time, three of us listened to Wagner's Ring opera cycle over four consecutive days.
But instead of making the most of college without work, most of the students went back home and took summer jobs the instant that exams were over - they didn't need the money, they certainly could afford to do what they were supposed to do (await the results) - but they simply could not cope with the void of not having classes and exams. They had nothing to do.
*
And the big picture of society at large was exactly the same. Prosperity came, Peace came, Comfort was established; but society had no idea what to do with it except deny that it had come or else dissipate it in utter triviality.
I noticed that people were mostly doing things to occupy their minds and have something to talk- (boast-, joke-, get angry-) about; that society was increasingly about filling-in-time.
*
For a long time I waited for this to change - and for people to acknowledge the possibilities and opportunities.
And after a while it became clear that this was not going to happen - but instead as the mass media developed and grew, society was developing truly transcendent capacities for passivity of will and dissipation of time.
*
I cannot think of a single modern society which used well the opportunities given by the establishment (for a few generations) of peace, prosperity and comfort.
In particular, all the modern societies used PP&C to reject religion - not to enhance it; and within religion, all the mainstream Western religions were corrupted by PP&C, became less spiritual, less devout, more worldly.
We did not use PP&C: IT USED US.
*
(The only exception that I know of is the Mormon church in the US; which used prosperity to become more devout and for the most prosperous members to grow the church by natural increase (large families) and missionary work. This was a rare, tremendous, yet un-recognized, achievement - actually to take advantage of PPP&C, rather than be corrupted and destroyed by it.)
*
Well, it is now clear for those with eyes to see that PP&C are not the natural state of all right-thinking persons - but an unearned privilege inherited from the genius and hard work past generations; and now we have become so far advanced in dissipation they cannot long continue.
But it is terribly disappointing to me that our civilization found nothing better to do with its vast opportunities than watch tv, participate in chit-chat, take foreign holidays, buy ever more new cars and clothes and gadgets; and occupy our minds with manufactured news, seduction and pornography, celebrity gossip, the pursuit and promotion of intoxication; cynically-contrived point-and-click sentimentality; and idle malice and hatred (aka politics).
*
So much did we desire these things - or so weakly did we reject them - that we have as a society eroded and all-but overthrown (to the best of our ability) the only things that might have compensated - marriage and family. These have been picked-at, disrespected and mocked, weakened, corrupted, inverted.
The direction that modernity has channelled its opportunities is utterly disgusting; compounded by the refusal to admit what we have done.
*
My interpretation?
With Man it is less important that he has nothing-to-stop-him doing something than that he is motivated to do it.
And that Man without religion is a pitiful thing; en masse he is a despicable thing.
*
Monday 20 January 2014
Mark Hackard has a blog!
*
I have previously opined that Mark Hackard is the deepest 'modern' socio-political commentator that I know of:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/is-mark-hackard-best-commentator-of-our.html
And, just today, I have discovered that a few months ago he set-up a Russian (and Orthodox) focused blog called Soul of the East; which archives some of his best work - and is a venue for new pieces including his translations of some outstanding but unfamiliar Russian thinkers.
http://souloftheeast.org
*
I have just begun reading through the newer material, and was struck by this translation from Ivan Ilyin:
We shall first examine the mechanistic view.
It sees in man first and foremost the instinctive individual with its “desires” and “needs”: every person wishes to work less, enjoy himself more and relax; procreate and accumulate; maintain his irresponsible opinions and express them without hindrance; to find the like-minded and associate with them wherever they may be; to depend upon no-one and wield as much power and influence as possible.
After all, men are born “equal”, and hence each of them must be provided equal rights for the assertion of their desires and needs: these are the inalienable rights of liberty which cannot abide restriction. Therefore every person should have an equal voice in affairs of state.
For so many people there will be so many equal voices. Whatever a man may fancy is to be affirmed, and let there be no interference in this. Allow like-minded men of all nations to unite freely; let the votes be counted; the majority will decide…
*
As to the quality of the desires, plans and undertakings of all these men of one mind, and especially the motives and intentions of voters, no-one may concern himself. All of this is protected by inviolable “freedom”, equality and the secret vote.
Every citizen as such is considered already reasonable, enlightened, well-intentioned and loyal, incorruptible and honorable; each man is given the opportunity to discover his “valor” and veil all his designs and schemes with words about “the common good”.
Until he is caught, this man is not a thief; until taken red-handed, he demands complete respect. He who has not been implicated at the scene of a crime (for example, treason, foreign espionage, conspiracy, bribes, waste, fraud, call-girl rings, counterfeiting) – is considered a political “gentleman” independent of his profession and a full citizen.
*
Most important are liberty, equality and vote-counting. The state is a mechanical equilibrium of private (personal and group) agendas; the state is built as a compromise of centrifugal forces, played out in the performances of political actors. And politics should move according to the results of mutual distrust and competing intrigues.
*
Unfortunately this view (as much as I know) is nowhere expressed in such a frank and precise form. It is not a doctrine; it is simply an unspoken political dogma, rooted in the world and taken as the self-evident essence of democracy. All men are formally free; all men are formally equal and contend with each other for power, for the sake of their own interests, yet under the pretense of a common benefit.
http://souloftheeast.org/2013/12/26/ivan-ilyin-on-formal-democracy/
**
I have previously opined that Mark Hackard is the deepest 'modern' socio-political commentator that I know of:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/is-mark-hackard-best-commentator-of-our.html
And, just today, I have discovered that a few months ago he set-up a Russian (and Orthodox) focused blog called Soul of the East; which archives some of his best work - and is a venue for new pieces including his translations of some outstanding but unfamiliar Russian thinkers.
http://souloftheeast.org
*
I have just begun reading through the newer material, and was struck by this translation from Ivan Ilyin:
We shall first examine the mechanistic view.
It sees in man first and foremost the instinctive individual with its “desires” and “needs”: every person wishes to work less, enjoy himself more and relax; procreate and accumulate; maintain his irresponsible opinions and express them without hindrance; to find the like-minded and associate with them wherever they may be; to depend upon no-one and wield as much power and influence as possible.
After all, men are born “equal”, and hence each of them must be provided equal rights for the assertion of their desires and needs: these are the inalienable rights of liberty which cannot abide restriction. Therefore every person should have an equal voice in affairs of state.
For so many people there will be so many equal voices. Whatever a man may fancy is to be affirmed, and let there be no interference in this. Allow like-minded men of all nations to unite freely; let the votes be counted; the majority will decide…
*
As to the quality of the desires, plans and undertakings of all these men of one mind, and especially the motives and intentions of voters, no-one may concern himself. All of this is protected by inviolable “freedom”, equality and the secret vote.
Every citizen as such is considered already reasonable, enlightened, well-intentioned and loyal, incorruptible and honorable; each man is given the opportunity to discover his “valor” and veil all his designs and schemes with words about “the common good”.
Until he is caught, this man is not a thief; until taken red-handed, he demands complete respect. He who has not been implicated at the scene of a crime (for example, treason, foreign espionage, conspiracy, bribes, waste, fraud, call-girl rings, counterfeiting) – is considered a political “gentleman” independent of his profession and a full citizen.
*
Most important are liberty, equality and vote-counting. The state is a mechanical equilibrium of private (personal and group) agendas; the state is built as a compromise of centrifugal forces, played out in the performances of political actors. And politics should move according to the results of mutual distrust and competing intrigues.
*
Unfortunately this view (as much as I know) is nowhere expressed in such a frank and precise form. It is not a doctrine; it is simply an unspoken political dogma, rooted in the world and taken as the self-evident essence of democracy. All men are formally free; all men are formally equal and contend with each other for power, for the sake of their own interests, yet under the pretense of a common benefit.
http://souloftheeast.org/2013/12/26/ivan-ilyin-on-formal-democracy/
**
Sunday 19 January 2014
Subversion of the family: one of the greatest evils of modernity
*
Most Men use their love of other people - especially love in the family - to understand the nature of God's love for us (it being like that of a wise and devoted Father) and ours for Him (like his grateful, trusting child).
I personally think this is a deeper truth than mere analogy - but even if regarded analogically it is the best 'way in' to understanding the nature of divine love for many or most people.
Subversion of reverence for the family is among the greatest evils of modernity - because family is the primary metaphor for divine love.
To misunderstand the family leads modern Man to misunderstand God - to find Him incomprehensible.
*
Most Men use their love of other people - especially love in the family - to understand the nature of God's love for us (it being like that of a wise and devoted Father) and ours for Him (like his grateful, trusting child).
I personally think this is a deeper truth than mere analogy - but even if regarded analogically it is the best 'way in' to understanding the nature of divine love for many or most people.
Subversion of reverence for the family is among the greatest evils of modernity - because family is the primary metaphor for divine love.
To misunderstand the family leads modern Man to misunderstand God - to find Him incomprehensible.
*
The best piece by Beethoven that you have (probably) never heard
*
The Choral Fantasy Op 80 (for piano, orchestra and chorus).
A self-contained 20 minute concert piece that is just sheer delight from beginning to end - and full of absolutely characteristic touches.
This is the version I got in 1977, on a Classics for Pleasure (bargain price) LP, by one of my very favourite Beethoven pianists: John Lill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3thfa_XrC8
Lill gave one of the most memorable concerts I ever attended - a lecture-recital at the non-mainstream venue of Ashington Technical College. The highlight was when he played a Liszt Transcendental study. To see this performed close-up, and done by probably the premier British pianist of that time - and a player of unsurpassed power (a big man - domed head, broad shoulders, meaty hands - looming over the keyboard) - was something thrilling. I thought the instrument was going to collapse at several points! - but the execution was always lyrical and (apparently) technically flawless.
*
The Choral Fantasy Op 80 (for piano, orchestra and chorus).
A self-contained 20 minute concert piece that is just sheer delight from beginning to end - and full of absolutely characteristic touches.
This is the version I got in 1977, on a Classics for Pleasure (bargain price) LP, by one of my very favourite Beethoven pianists: John Lill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3thfa_XrC8
Lill gave one of the most memorable concerts I ever attended - a lecture-recital at the non-mainstream venue of Ashington Technical College. The highlight was when he played a Liszt Transcendental study. To see this performed close-up, and done by probably the premier British pianist of that time - and a player of unsurpassed power (a big man - domed head, broad shoulders, meaty hands - looming over the keyboard) - was something thrilling. I thought the instrument was going to collapse at several points! - but the execution was always lyrical and (apparently) technically flawless.
*
Saturday 18 January 2014
Calls to treat different things (or people or groups) 'equally' are ALWAYS, eventually, *totally* destructive
*
Very few things in nature are equal - perhaps no two things are truly equal: certainly no two people are equal - because no two people are the same (not even identical twins).
Equality always collapses its meaning into 'the same' - whatever sophisticated and nuanced distinctions may be drawn between equality and sameness, always equality is in fact, in the real world, interpreted as 'the same'.
So to ask for equality is to ask for the impossible - which is why its pursuit is *totally* destructive.
Equality can never be attained because sameness can never be attained - and because it can never be attained then the process of trying to establish equality will never stop until everything is destroyed (or the attempt to impose equality is abandoned - which ever comes first).
It is trivially easy to show that two people, or groups of people, are not treated equally, because they never-ever-ever are treated equally: because it is impossible.
If the detection of inequality is taken as an imperative to start imposing equality - then anything can be destroyed, on the grounds that it is not (yet) equal; and everything will in the end be destroyed, as the attempt to impose impossible equality moves from one target to the next.
Yet despite the above, somehow we find ourselves in a position in which equality is regarded as not just something achievable, but as the single most important thing in the world - and the attempt to abolish inequality as the primary political imperative: the primary moral imperative.
So important, that any amount of destruction is justified - e.g. the saying "you can't make an omelet" - that is to say, an equal society - "without breaking eggs".
When the omelet can never, and will never, be made; the result is a world in which people break eggs, heads, organizations and institutions - without compunction, without end.
*
Very few things in nature are equal - perhaps no two things are truly equal: certainly no two people are equal - because no two people are the same (not even identical twins).
Equality always collapses its meaning into 'the same' - whatever sophisticated and nuanced distinctions may be drawn between equality and sameness, always equality is in fact, in the real world, interpreted as 'the same'.
So to ask for equality is to ask for the impossible - which is why its pursuit is *totally* destructive.
Equality can never be attained because sameness can never be attained - and because it can never be attained then the process of trying to establish equality will never stop until everything is destroyed (or the attempt to impose equality is abandoned - which ever comes first).
It is trivially easy to show that two people, or groups of people, are not treated equally, because they never-ever-ever are treated equally: because it is impossible.
If the detection of inequality is taken as an imperative to start imposing equality - then anything can be destroyed, on the grounds that it is not (yet) equal; and everything will in the end be destroyed, as the attempt to impose impossible equality moves from one target to the next.
Yet despite the above, somehow we find ourselves in a position in which equality is regarded as not just something achievable, but as the single most important thing in the world - and the attempt to abolish inequality as the primary political imperative: the primary moral imperative.
So important, that any amount of destruction is justified - e.g. the saying "you can't make an omelet" - that is to say, an equal society - "without breaking eggs".
When the omelet can never, and will never, be made; the result is a world in which people break eggs, heads, organizations and institutions - without compunction, without end.
*
First love God - only then can you love neighbour. Likewise first love Truth - only then can you do philosophy or science
*
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22: 36-40
*
First Love God - because without God you cannot Love your neighbour.
Without Love of God, then love of neighbour becomes just 'altruism' - policies, laws, regulations; taxes; doles, welfare, subsidies, allowances, benefits... statecraft and suppression of those who oppose it.
Which is anti-Love.
We see this all around us. The experiment has been done - look at the results.
*
Modern 'altruism' ('love thy neighbour') by those who do not first Love God is not just un-Loving but anti-Love: Hatred in the name of Love - which is much, much worse.
*
(It takes a while for the cut-off of Love of God to work through a person and a culture - childhood beliefs and experiences have a lasting effect - but there has now been enough time that we can observe the consequences.)
*
Philosophy and Science display the same dependence on Truth.
First love Truth - because without it you cannot do philosophy or science or indeed any of the scholarly disciplines.
Without love of Truth, then all academic activity becomes careerism and expediency - dishonesty done in the name of Truth.
We see this all around us. The experiment has been done - look at the results.
*
Modern research and scholarship by careerists who do not first believe in Truth is not just un-Truthful but anti-Truthful: dishonesty in the name of Truth - which is much, much worse.
*
(It takes a while for the cut-off of Love of Truth to work through a person and a culture - childhood beliefs and experiences have a lasting effect - but there has now been enough time that we can observe the consequences.)
*
36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Matthew 22: 36-40
*
First Love God - because without God you cannot Love your neighbour.
Without Love of God, then love of neighbour becomes just 'altruism' - policies, laws, regulations; taxes; doles, welfare, subsidies, allowances, benefits... statecraft and suppression of those who oppose it.
Which is anti-Love.
We see this all around us. The experiment has been done - look at the results.
*
Modern 'altruism' ('love thy neighbour') by those who do not first Love God is not just un-Loving but anti-Love: Hatred in the name of Love - which is much, much worse.
*
(It takes a while for the cut-off of Love of God to work through a person and a culture - childhood beliefs and experiences have a lasting effect - but there has now been enough time that we can observe the consequences.)
*
Philosophy and Science display the same dependence on Truth.
First love Truth - because without it you cannot do philosophy or science or indeed any of the scholarly disciplines.
Without love of Truth, then all academic activity becomes careerism and expediency - dishonesty done in the name of Truth.
We see this all around us. The experiment has been done - look at the results.
*
Modern research and scholarship by careerists who do not first believe in Truth is not just un-Truthful but anti-Truthful: dishonesty in the name of Truth - which is much, much worse.
*
(It takes a while for the cut-off of Love of Truth to work through a person and a culture - childhood beliefs and experiences have a lasting effect - but there has now been enough time that we can observe the consequences.)
*
What *do* we take with us when we die?
*
Love.
*
When we die, we take love with us.
Of God, of others - and their love of us.
*
That is not all we take - but it is the most important thing.
And that we do take love with us is a vital but neglected/ denied/ unexplained fact.
*
But what kind of a thing is love? - What are suitable analogies? - More work needed...
*
Love.
*
When we die, we take love with us.
Of God, of others - and their love of us.
*
That is not all we take - but it is the most important thing.
And that we do take love with us is a vital but neglected/ denied/ unexplained fact.
*
But what kind of a thing is love? - What are suitable analogies? - More work needed...
*
Friday 17 January 2014
Regret is (almost) the opposite of repentance
*
Regret seems a very secular, and modern, emotion.
Regret is the desire to remake the present. To go back and take a different path.
*
But to repent is to acknowledge that we were wrong; a decision was wrong, a choice was wrong, a reaction was wrong.
Repentance does not, therefore, entail wanting to re-shape the present: It is possible, quite normal indeed, to repent past actions, yet be grateful for the present. Or vice versa.
*
What about the "Je ne regrette rien"/ "I did it my way" attitude which so typifies the modern Man?
If it was really about 'regret' then that would be fine - but the context tell us it is actually about repentance - the person is saying (in a Nietzschian spirit) I repent nothing.
They are saying: if I had my life over, I would do everything exactly the same all over again. Even knowing the full import and consequences - I would choose to re-live my life precisely, rather than any other possible life.
And that attitude is impossible to a Christian - is profoundly anti-Christian (which is of course why Nietzsche made having that belief the touchstone of existential sincerity).
*
Regret seems a very secular, and modern, emotion.
Regret is the desire to remake the present. To go back and take a different path.
*
But to repent is to acknowledge that we were wrong; a decision was wrong, a choice was wrong, a reaction was wrong.
Repentance does not, therefore, entail wanting to re-shape the present: It is possible, quite normal indeed, to repent past actions, yet be grateful for the present. Or vice versa.
*
What about the "Je ne regrette rien"/ "I did it my way" attitude which so typifies the modern Man?
If it was really about 'regret' then that would be fine - but the context tell us it is actually about repentance - the person is saying (in a Nietzschian spirit) I repent nothing.
They are saying: if I had my life over, I would do everything exactly the same all over again. Even knowing the full import and consequences - I would choose to re-live my life precisely, rather than any other possible life.
And that attitude is impossible to a Christian - is profoundly anti-Christian (which is of course why Nietzsche made having that belief the touchstone of existential sincerity).
*
Subversion and blog comments
*
I have been reading a history of art from a Christian (Calvinist) perspective - Modern art and the death of a culture by Hans Rookmaaker - which provides food for thought about the operation of evil in the world.
Among other things, it documents (albeit not explicitly) the way in which subversive became a term of approbation in art - until subversion became (for some people) the primary job of the (modern) artist.
For them, all real art was subversive.
*
After a while (since about the mid-1960s) the idea became mainstream. Subversive is good - if you can subvert, then you are doing a good job. People ought to be allowed to subvert, they should be free to subvert... Dang-it they have a basic human right to subvert!
*
For a traditionalist, this is bunk.
Subversion of the Good is evil - and indeed one of the very worst of sins when it confuses or inverts the polarity of Good and evil.
(I would judge that modern artists - as a subspecies of radical intellectual - have been among the worst sinners, the most evil people, ever to inhabit the earth.)
*
So... I have no intention of publishing comments which are subversive of blog posts which are important to me.
A commenter has no right for their comment to be published, I have no obligation to apologize-for or excuse the non-publication of a comment - indeed (as a broad rule) I only publish comments I like and which I believe will enhance the post.
Certainly I do not publish comments which I believe or suspect will subvert the blog post - why would I do that? Why would I spend thousands of hours a year writing a blog only to facilitate having it pulled to pieces by subversive commenters?
Nor do I publish comments which criticize or mock me - of course not! What kind of masochistic nutcase would I have to be actually to facilitate and approve and propagate the publication of slurs and rants against myself!
*
This is just a matter of basic mental health.
Other bloggers seem happy to have their blog posts deflected, pulled-apart, hijacked and in general subverted by commenters; and to publish vicious, silly, ignorant or irrelevant and hate-filled diatribes against themselves and the things they love and wish to promote.
But I regard them as crazy.
*
I have been reading a history of art from a Christian (Calvinist) perspective - Modern art and the death of a culture by Hans Rookmaaker - which provides food for thought about the operation of evil in the world.
Among other things, it documents (albeit not explicitly) the way in which subversive became a term of approbation in art - until subversion became (for some people) the primary job of the (modern) artist.
For them, all real art was subversive.
*
After a while (since about the mid-1960s) the idea became mainstream. Subversive is good - if you can subvert, then you are doing a good job. People ought to be allowed to subvert, they should be free to subvert... Dang-it they have a basic human right to subvert!
*
For a traditionalist, this is bunk.
Subversion of the Good is evil - and indeed one of the very worst of sins when it confuses or inverts the polarity of Good and evil.
(I would judge that modern artists - as a subspecies of radical intellectual - have been among the worst sinners, the most evil people, ever to inhabit the earth.)
*
So... I have no intention of publishing comments which are subversive of blog posts which are important to me.
A commenter has no right for their comment to be published, I have no obligation to apologize-for or excuse the non-publication of a comment - indeed (as a broad rule) I only publish comments I like and which I believe will enhance the post.
Certainly I do not publish comments which I believe or suspect will subvert the blog post - why would I do that? Why would I spend thousands of hours a year writing a blog only to facilitate having it pulled to pieces by subversive commenters?
Nor do I publish comments which criticize or mock me - of course not! What kind of masochistic nutcase would I have to be actually to facilitate and approve and propagate the publication of slurs and rants against myself!
*
This is just a matter of basic mental health.
Other bloggers seem happy to have their blog posts deflected, pulled-apart, hijacked and in general subverted by commenters; and to publish vicious, silly, ignorant or irrelevant and hate-filled diatribes against themselves and the things they love and wish to promote.
But I regard them as crazy.
*
Thursday 16 January 2014
Equating the Mormon God (the Father) with Zeus/ Jupiter, the demiurge or a godling is usually ignorant/ misinformed; or else silly, or malicious
*
1. Ignorant/ Misinformed
It is no shame, neither is it unusual, to be misinformed about Mormonism (why should people know about it, after all?) - so long as this ignorance is acknowledged and correction is accepted.
Most often, people are both ignorant and misinformed - having accepted as truth various malicious lies and distortions, or else they are simply confused, and accidentally conflating Mormonism with other religions.
But Mormonism has been around 180 years, and masses of information is freely available - and we know in great detail how Mormonism has worked-out in practice and what Mormons actually do.
So that an informed person could never honestly equate the Mormon concept of God with the head of a pantheon such as Zeus or Jupiter, or the Platonic or Gnostic demiurge, or else a 'godling' (whatever they mean by that) - the facts very simply and obviously refute this equation.
Of course there are similarities - just as there are similarities between men and women, or the Archangel Michael and Satan, or Winston Churchill and David Cameron - but obviously that similarity does not make them the same.
(The proper question to ask, the correct enquiry to make, would be based on the knowledge that the Mormon concept of God was not the same as Zeus, a demiurge or 'godling' - and to try and understand why this was not so.)
*
2. Silly
People express opinions about stuff in an unserious way, without their brains being fully-engaged, just to make conversation or to fill-in time, or to provoke a response.
They don't really care much either way.
They are not prepared to pay attention, to concentrate, to follow a line of reasoning.
They are just silly - at least on this subject - and there is really no point in talking with them unless they will first stop being silly (or else it only encourages them in their silliness).
*
3. Malicious
Malicious: a.k.a. wicked, evil, anti-Good.
Many people, including many or most Christians and all Leftists and Liberals; are malicious about Mormonism. They hate it, and they enjoy hating it, and they do not want anybody to disturb them in the enjoyment of this hatred.
They will cheerfully spread lies, distortions, false equations, confusions, gross exaggerations... whatever they suppose will cause the most damage to Mormonism.
They say things like that Mormons worship a polytheistic pantheon with God as the Chief; or that Mormons are some kind of Gnostic cultists; or that Mormons have a low view of God such that he is better described as a mere 'godling'.
Other malicious people will then believe what these malicious people say, and so it goes. And since they are motivated by malice, it is impossible to refute such lies - the less evidence for the lies the more sinister is the perceived conspiracy and threat...
Such people have put themselves on the wrong side, on the side of wrong - because they are hate-full; therefore, if they willfully remain on the side of hatred, then they have freely chosen to reject salvation.
(Of course, they can and may repent.)
*
1. Ignorant/ Misinformed
It is no shame, neither is it unusual, to be misinformed about Mormonism (why should people know about it, after all?) - so long as this ignorance is acknowledged and correction is accepted.
Most often, people are both ignorant and misinformed - having accepted as truth various malicious lies and distortions, or else they are simply confused, and accidentally conflating Mormonism with other religions.
But Mormonism has been around 180 years, and masses of information is freely available - and we know in great detail how Mormonism has worked-out in practice and what Mormons actually do.
So that an informed person could never honestly equate the Mormon concept of God with the head of a pantheon such as Zeus or Jupiter, or the Platonic or Gnostic demiurge, or else a 'godling' (whatever they mean by that) - the facts very simply and obviously refute this equation.
Of course there are similarities - just as there are similarities between men and women, or the Archangel Michael and Satan, or Winston Churchill and David Cameron - but obviously that similarity does not make them the same.
(The proper question to ask, the correct enquiry to make, would be based on the knowledge that the Mormon concept of God was not the same as Zeus, a demiurge or 'godling' - and to try and understand why this was not so.)
*
2. Silly
People express opinions about stuff in an unserious way, without their brains being fully-engaged, just to make conversation or to fill-in time, or to provoke a response.
They don't really care much either way.
They are not prepared to pay attention, to concentrate, to follow a line of reasoning.
They are just silly - at least on this subject - and there is really no point in talking with them unless they will first stop being silly (or else it only encourages them in their silliness).
*
3. Malicious
Malicious: a.k.a. wicked, evil, anti-Good.
Many people, including many or most Christians and all Leftists and Liberals; are malicious about Mormonism. They hate it, and they enjoy hating it, and they do not want anybody to disturb them in the enjoyment of this hatred.
They will cheerfully spread lies, distortions, false equations, confusions, gross exaggerations... whatever they suppose will cause the most damage to Mormonism.
They say things like that Mormons worship a polytheistic pantheon with God as the Chief; or that Mormons are some kind of Gnostic cultists; or that Mormons have a low view of God such that he is better described as a mere 'godling'.
Other malicious people will then believe what these malicious people say, and so it goes. And since they are motivated by malice, it is impossible to refute such lies - the less evidence for the lies the more sinister is the perceived conspiracy and threat...
Such people have put themselves on the wrong side, on the side of wrong - because they are hate-full; therefore, if they willfully remain on the side of hatred, then they have freely chosen to reject salvation.
(Of course, they can and may repent.)
*
Living in a New Left society of permanent revolution
*
The old Communist idea of Permanent Revolution is now reality.
We live in a world that is based on the idea that that the true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical intellectual – is intrinsically subversive; and will always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as necessary to achieve this.
(This is how the word ‘subversive’ came to have its current positive and approving meaning for modern intellectuals.)
This is the modern type of Leftism: more specifically New Leftism.
*
By New Left I mean that the ideology of the Media is that of the post-1960s evolution and development of communism, socialism, progressivism and (US) Liberalism – the Leftism of Political Correctness.
The Old Left was mostly focused on the economy – Marxism was mostly an economic theory. Thus its analysis was based on an economic category of Class; and its tools were economic things like nationalization and redistribution of wealth. The most favoured group was The Proletariat, which was in practice essentially the native male working class of manual labourers, especially as represented by Trades Unions.
But the New Left is in practice almost indifferent to the economy; and instead focuses on a rainbow of identity politics, 'Human Rights', ‘the environment’, anti-racism, feminism and (most of all) promoting the sexual revolution. Consequently, the New Left has ‘switched sides’, and turned-against the native class of male manual labourers; and now strongly favours women, other ethnicities, the unemployed and economically inactive, and newly arrived immigrants.
*
The qualitative transition from Old to New Left demonstrates that there is no stable, long-term positive ideology to the Left/ Liberals/ Progressives – and even the most fundamental values and principles may at some point be discarded or reversed.
And although relativistic, the New Left ideology is not tolerant. Whatever is being asserted now is absolute, on the one hand and opposition is not considered reasonable.
Yet, despite this totalitarian intolerance of dissent at any given point in time; what has been treated in this absolute manner can very rapidly be dropped and replaced with some other, equally ‘absolute’, priority.
So in practice strong opinions are cycled and re-cycled, promoted then vilified, suppressed then revived, turned upside-down, combined and split into fragments...
*
In the long-run, anything and all is grist to the Mass Media mill; no topic is sacred or fundamental; everything is up-for challenge, discussion, mockery, analysis, criticism – anything at all may be discarded and replaced with something else, or not replaced at all.
This behaviour is, of course, profoundly negative and subversive – in particular the relativistic ideology of the permanent revolution has been subversive of traditional and orthodox forms of religion (especially Christianity – since this has been dominant in the West); and also subversive of 'tradition' – in all its forms: subversive of traditional socio-political order (traditional hierarchies and specialisms); subversive of traditional concepts of truth, beauty and virtue; and perhaps especially, subversive of traditional sexuality including marriage and the family.
Furthermore, the New Left has been subversive of the Old Left values and institutions – of Trades Unions and Labour Parties, of rational central planning and nationalization, and especially subversive of the tradition Christian and Ethical socialists characterized by modesty, frugality, earnest toil and puritanical sexual ethics.
Despite its fanatically-opinionated campaigns in favour of this, that or the other; relativism is indeed over time a profoundly negative ideology –indeed relativism sooner-or-later undermines any positive agenda which may emerge – even its own ideas such as the dictatorship of the proletariat which at one time seemed so terribly important to such a lot of people in the Mass Media.
*
In sum, we live in a state of Permanent Revolution.
Permanent revolution means that the dominant ideology has no positive goal or aim – the is no long-term plan to structure society in some permanently sustainable way; indeed whatever is was or is or may in future be achieved exists only to be dismantled and replaced when expedient.
This is, indeed, the primary and essential difference between the Old and New Left – the Old Left intended to make Heaven on Earth – Utopia. And then stop – and maintain utopia (because who would want to change utopia?).
And utopia justified the humanly unprecedented ruthlessness of the Old Left – the End was so wonderful that any Means were justifiable in trying to reach it.
But when utopia showed no signs of arriving, the revolutionary impulse began to feed-off-itself; and revolution succeeded revolution in an iterative cycle aimed at destroying the forces opposed to revolution – but without any genuine or stable long term purpose.
This is precisely how the modern Left works. Over time, it identifies, mocks, subverts, weakens, destroys and finally inverts and reverses any group or person that opposes revolution – but with no goal.
There is no stable, explicit, long-term aimed-for state of affairs which is being implemented.
(This is is done via the Mass Media ideology I have called Opinionated Relativism: a relativism which at any specific moment and on any specific topic denies its own relativism – but over time keeps on discarding its previous convictions as mere opinions.)
*
Thus the modern Left truly is a negative, destructive, meaningless, purposeless thing.
Yet the modern world is utterly dominated by this nihilistic zeal: it is, indeed, the most powerful thing in the modern world.
*
The old Communist idea of Permanent Revolution is now reality.
We live in a world that is based on the idea that that the true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical intellectual – is intrinsically subversive; and will always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as necessary to achieve this.
(This is how the word ‘subversive’ came to have its current positive and approving meaning for modern intellectuals.)
This is the modern type of Leftism: more specifically New Leftism.
*
By New Left I mean that the ideology of the Media is that of the post-1960s evolution and development of communism, socialism, progressivism and (US) Liberalism – the Leftism of Political Correctness.
The Old Left was mostly focused on the economy – Marxism was mostly an economic theory. Thus its analysis was based on an economic category of Class; and its tools were economic things like nationalization and redistribution of wealth. The most favoured group was The Proletariat, which was in practice essentially the native male working class of manual labourers, especially as represented by Trades Unions.
But the New Left is in practice almost indifferent to the economy; and instead focuses on a rainbow of identity politics, 'Human Rights', ‘the environment’, anti-racism, feminism and (most of all) promoting the sexual revolution. Consequently, the New Left has ‘switched sides’, and turned-against the native class of male manual labourers; and now strongly favours women, other ethnicities, the unemployed and economically inactive, and newly arrived immigrants.
*
The qualitative transition from Old to New Left demonstrates that there is no stable, long-term positive ideology to the Left/ Liberals/ Progressives – and even the most fundamental values and principles may at some point be discarded or reversed.
And although relativistic, the New Left ideology is not tolerant. Whatever is being asserted now is absolute, on the one hand and opposition is not considered reasonable.
Yet, despite this totalitarian intolerance of dissent at any given point in time; what has been treated in this absolute manner can very rapidly be dropped and replaced with some other, equally ‘absolute’, priority.
So in practice strong opinions are cycled and re-cycled, promoted then vilified, suppressed then revived, turned upside-down, combined and split into fragments...
*
In the long-run, anything and all is grist to the Mass Media mill; no topic is sacred or fundamental; everything is up-for challenge, discussion, mockery, analysis, criticism – anything at all may be discarded and replaced with something else, or not replaced at all.
This behaviour is, of course, profoundly negative and subversive – in particular the relativistic ideology of the permanent revolution has been subversive of traditional and orthodox forms of religion (especially Christianity – since this has been dominant in the West); and also subversive of 'tradition' – in all its forms: subversive of traditional socio-political order (traditional hierarchies and specialisms); subversive of traditional concepts of truth, beauty and virtue; and perhaps especially, subversive of traditional sexuality including marriage and the family.
Furthermore, the New Left has been subversive of the Old Left values and institutions – of Trades Unions and Labour Parties, of rational central planning and nationalization, and especially subversive of the tradition Christian and Ethical socialists characterized by modesty, frugality, earnest toil and puritanical sexual ethics.
Despite its fanatically-opinionated campaigns in favour of this, that or the other; relativism is indeed over time a profoundly negative ideology –indeed relativism sooner-or-later undermines any positive agenda which may emerge – even its own ideas such as the dictatorship of the proletariat which at one time seemed so terribly important to such a lot of people in the Mass Media.
*
In sum, we live in a state of Permanent Revolution.
Permanent revolution means that the dominant ideology has no positive goal or aim – the is no long-term plan to structure society in some permanently sustainable way; indeed whatever is was or is or may in future be achieved exists only to be dismantled and replaced when expedient.
This is, indeed, the primary and essential difference between the Old and New Left – the Old Left intended to make Heaven on Earth – Utopia. And then stop – and maintain utopia (because who would want to change utopia?).
And utopia justified the humanly unprecedented ruthlessness of the Old Left – the End was so wonderful that any Means were justifiable in trying to reach it.
But when utopia showed no signs of arriving, the revolutionary impulse began to feed-off-itself; and revolution succeeded revolution in an iterative cycle aimed at destroying the forces opposed to revolution – but without any genuine or stable long term purpose.
This is precisely how the modern Left works. Over time, it identifies, mocks, subverts, weakens, destroys and finally inverts and reverses any group or person that opposes revolution – but with no goal.
There is no stable, explicit, long-term aimed-for state of affairs which is being implemented.
(This is is done via the Mass Media ideology I have called Opinionated Relativism: a relativism which at any specific moment and on any specific topic denies its own relativism – but over time keeps on discarding its previous convictions as mere opinions.)
*
Thus the modern Left truly is a negative, destructive, meaningless, purposeless thing.
Yet the modern world is utterly dominated by this nihilistic zeal: it is, indeed, the most powerful thing in the modern world.
*
Wednesday 15 January 2014
A message to neo-reactionaries - *please* stop wasting your time and repent and convert
*
As a society, as individual people, we don't need more analysis; we don't need another systematic political framework.
Our deficit is not in understanding, but in motivation. We need repentance, renewal and a fresh start. This can only come from without, not within (because what is within is the problem).
Become Christian, say that you are Christian - say it to yourself, then to others.
Leave aside further questions (like which church, or whether any church at all) until after you are self-acknowledged a Christian. Things will be different, things will happen, after you are a Christian - but only after.
Say it: do it. It is absolutely necessary.
*
As a society, as individual people, we don't need more analysis; we don't need another systematic political framework.
Our deficit is not in understanding, but in motivation. We need repentance, renewal and a fresh start. This can only come from without, not within (because what is within is the problem).
Become Christian, say that you are Christian - say it to yourself, then to others.
Leave aside further questions (like which church, or whether any church at all) until after you are self-acknowledged a Christian. Things will be different, things will happen, after you are a Christian - but only after.
Say it: do it. It is absolutely necessary.
*
Ralph Waldo Emerson on the price and function of slaves
*
Emerson's journal, 1857:
In the south a slave is bluntly but accurately valued at 500 to 1000 dollars, if a good working field hand; if a mechanic, as carpenter or smith, at 10, 15 or 20 hundred.
A Mulatto girl, if beautiful, rises at once to high estimation. If beautiful & sprightly-witted, one who is a joy when present, a perpetual entertainment to the eye, &, when absent, a happy remembrance, $2500 and upwards of our money.
*
This was brought to mind by Peter Frost's compilation of references on the White Slave Trade (Europe to North Africa) which was of broadly the same size as the Black Slave Trade - involving about 1.5 millions of people.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-other-slave-trade.html
The White Slave Trade continued on a large scale until nearly 1800, and on a smaller scale for another hundred years - in other words, again, about the same duration as the Black Slave Trade.
But the White Slave Trade was mostly of women, for sexual purposes.
*
The list of slave prices suggests that, by the time it ended, sex may have become the primary motivation for slavery in the United States - slavery existing mainly for sexual rather than economic benefits. At least, that is what Emerson apparently believed.
*
Emerson's journal, 1857:
In the south a slave is bluntly but accurately valued at 500 to 1000 dollars, if a good working field hand; if a mechanic, as carpenter or smith, at 10, 15 or 20 hundred.
A Mulatto girl, if beautiful, rises at once to high estimation. If beautiful & sprightly-witted, one who is a joy when present, a perpetual entertainment to the eye, &, when absent, a happy remembrance, $2500 and upwards of our money.
*
This was brought to mind by Peter Frost's compilation of references on the White Slave Trade (Europe to North Africa) which was of broadly the same size as the Black Slave Trade - involving about 1.5 millions of people.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2013/07/the-other-slave-trade.html
The White Slave Trade continued on a large scale until nearly 1800, and on a smaller scale for another hundred years - in other words, again, about the same duration as the Black Slave Trade.
But the White Slave Trade was mostly of women, for sexual purposes.
*
The list of slave prices suggests that, by the time it ended, sex may have become the primary motivation for slavery in the United States - slavery existing mainly for sexual rather than economic benefits. At least, that is what Emerson apparently believed.
*
Tuesday 14 January 2014
The Mormon (folk?) belief in God's wife - speculations on the topic of Mother in Heaven
*
One of the values of having a metaphysical stance which includes the possibility of It Just Is as an acceptable terminus to the demand for causal explanation - is that it ends the infinite regress, and the problems which that brings with it.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/three-ultimate-metaphysical.html
*
The Mormon belief is that we are in some literal sense the children of God. then there is the fact that on earth children are produced by two parents. Further, the Mormon doctrine is that all Men are either male or female from before mortal life - and the complete unity of Man is therefore the dyad - a couple sealed in eternal marriage.
Considered together, all these tend to imply that God the Father must also have a 'consort' specifically a Wife, and also a Father and Mother in infinite regress.
God's wife is termed Mother in Heaven.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven
*
I would classify the belief in a Mother in Heaven as (on the whole) mostly a 'folk' belief among Mormons because it is not required of Mormons, and there is virtually nothing on the topic (explicitly) in Mormon scriptures, and the belief in a Mother in Heaven has from not-much to zero impact on the major aspects of Mormon life and discourse.
On the other hand, belief in a Mother in Heaven is not ruled-out by LDS authorities (as the linked entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes clear) - and the reality of a Mother in Heaven has apparently been a belief held by Presidents and other General Authorities (including, probably, Joseph Smith - if the King Follett discourse is regarded as definitive rather than speculative thinking-aloud).
*
The Mormon belief in a Mother in Heaven is therefore not so much a matter of revelation or teaching, as a matter of the logical extrapolation of implicit doctrine.
If the principle of parenthood is taken to be universal, then every person must have two parents - including God the Father - ergo God must have a Wife , and must have been the Son of another God.
But the principle of parenthood need not apply to God the Father.
If God the Father Just Is - eternally; then he may also be:
1. The unique instance of a parentless personage; and also
2. The unique example of a being neither male nor female, but one who alone is able to procreate spiritual children.
*
Indeed, if these two things are accepted as part of primary reality (they Just Are); then this disposes of almost all the most significant arguments that Mormons are not-Christian.
Because such a God is the One God - past, present and future; He is primary, unique, eternal, unbegotten, Father of all - and so on.
In sum, God the Father is not just the one God of this universe, but the one God of all reality - and He is unique in his Nature.
*
To assume that God the Father Just Is also disposes of any necessity for positing a Mother in Heaven.
My impression is that the Mother in Heaven is a long way from being central to Mormon doctrine - since it is possible to go for months, or even years, of reading books, articles, theology and journalism about Mormonism and not to come across any reference to Mother in Heaven: indeed, to forget about the idea altogether...
*
My interpretation is that some Mormons have been led, by their metaphysical assumptions concerning the universality of sex and parenthood, to generate theological modifications including infinite-regress of parents (and universes) and a Wife for God the Father - but these additions have made very little (if any) difference to the actual 'popular' daily beliefs and practices of most devout Mormons.
*
In this respect, it seems that the Mormon Mother in Heaven has developed in a manner opposite to the Roman Catholic conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Mother of God.
In the Catholic tradition, the veneration of Mary was first established in the popular everyday practice of liturgy, prayer, iconography, art and devotional life generally - and only later, sometimes many centuries later - were theological modifications (e.g. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception) introduced to justify and explain these practices.
So the Catholic Mother of God was venerated in practice primarily and long before theory; while the Mormon Mother in Heaven seems to be mostly (for most people) a projection of theological theory; and not much (or at all) venerated in practice.
*
One of the values of having a metaphysical stance which includes the possibility of It Just Is as an acceptable terminus to the demand for causal explanation - is that it ends the infinite regress, and the problems which that brings with it.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/three-ultimate-metaphysical.html
*
The Mormon belief is that we are in some literal sense the children of God. then there is the fact that on earth children are produced by two parents. Further, the Mormon doctrine is that all Men are either male or female from before mortal life - and the complete unity of Man is therefore the dyad - a couple sealed in eternal marriage.
Considered together, all these tend to imply that God the Father must also have a 'consort' specifically a Wife, and also a Father and Mother in infinite regress.
God's wife is termed Mother in Heaven.
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mother_in_Heaven
*
I would classify the belief in a Mother in Heaven as (on the whole) mostly a 'folk' belief among Mormons because it is not required of Mormons, and there is virtually nothing on the topic (explicitly) in Mormon scriptures, and the belief in a Mother in Heaven has from not-much to zero impact on the major aspects of Mormon life and discourse.
On the other hand, belief in a Mother in Heaven is not ruled-out by LDS authorities (as the linked entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism makes clear) - and the reality of a Mother in Heaven has apparently been a belief held by Presidents and other General Authorities (including, probably, Joseph Smith - if the King Follett discourse is regarded as definitive rather than speculative thinking-aloud).
*
The Mormon belief in a Mother in Heaven is therefore not so much a matter of revelation or teaching, as a matter of the logical extrapolation of implicit doctrine.
If the principle of parenthood is taken to be universal, then every person must have two parents - including God the Father - ergo God must have a Wife , and must have been the Son of another God.
But the principle of parenthood need not apply to God the Father.
If God the Father Just Is - eternally; then he may also be:
1. The unique instance of a parentless personage; and also
2. The unique example of a being neither male nor female, but one who alone is able to procreate spiritual children.
*
Indeed, if these two things are accepted as part of primary reality (they Just Are); then this disposes of almost all the most significant arguments that Mormons are not-Christian.
Because such a God is the One God - past, present and future; He is primary, unique, eternal, unbegotten, Father of all - and so on.
In sum, God the Father is not just the one God of this universe, but the one God of all reality - and He is unique in his Nature.
*
To assume that God the Father Just Is also disposes of any necessity for positing a Mother in Heaven.
My impression is that the Mother in Heaven is a long way from being central to Mormon doctrine - since it is possible to go for months, or even years, of reading books, articles, theology and journalism about Mormonism and not to come across any reference to Mother in Heaven: indeed, to forget about the idea altogether...
*
My interpretation is that some Mormons have been led, by their metaphysical assumptions concerning the universality of sex and parenthood, to generate theological modifications including infinite-regress of parents (and universes) and a Wife for God the Father - but these additions have made very little (if any) difference to the actual 'popular' daily beliefs and practices of most devout Mormons.
*
In this respect, it seems that the Mormon Mother in Heaven has developed in a manner opposite to the Roman Catholic conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary - Mother of God.
In the Catholic tradition, the veneration of Mary was first established in the popular everyday practice of liturgy, prayer, iconography, art and devotional life generally - and only later, sometimes many centuries later - were theological modifications (e.g. the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception) introduced to justify and explain these practices.
So the Catholic Mother of God was venerated in practice primarily and long before theory; while the Mormon Mother in Heaven seems to be mostly (for most people) a projection of theological theory; and not much (or at all) venerated in practice.
*
Why I am doing pluralist theology; why don't I just accept the traditional monism?
*
If your theology works for you - and does not distort your Christian faith - fine.
My position is that theology, philosophy, metaphysics - should serve Christianity, and be subordinate to it.
I'm trying to do something else - I'm trying to do theology in the 'pragmatist/ pluralist' school/ style of William James; and am therefore using different metaphysical presuppositions.
*
Why? Because they solve some of the metaphysical problems which lie nearest the core of Christianity, while pragmatism provides a clear and coherent explanation of the core things.
I mean things like how God can be wholly Good and wholly loving of us, yet there is vast suffering; and how Men have real free will - real autonomy of choice.
Pragmatism/pluralism also solves the problem (and this is a subject about which I have not yet blogged) of the suffering caused by natural disasters (meteor collisions, volcanoes and earthquakes, harsh weather, predation and disease). Simply: These need not be God's will (although some specific instances will be).
*
In other words pragmatism solves - or rather does not have in the first place - some of the toughest and most faith destroying (and most historically-divisive) problems with Classical Metaphysics.
This is impressive!
Pragmatism has its own problems, and these are as ineradicable as the problem of free will is ineradicable for monism; but these problems are not at the core of Christian belief - so I think pluralism is - on the whole - better!
*
But the problems of monism, of classical theology really are ineradicable.
If God caused everything, he did all evil. The numerous attempts to argue otherwise are disingenuous or confused - people sometimes almost deliberately attempting to confuse themselves by piling on further hypotheses, or simply losing track of their arguments.
But the real situation is crystal clear.
The get-out clause about everything being for the good but incomprehensible is unacceptable to Christians since it leaves Man utterly unable to judge for himself over anything at all; and in a position where there is nothing to do but submit to the will of God, which must appear arbitrary.
Yet this would not be Christian but the other major monotheism. And this just is where that kind of metaphysics takes you.
*
Wise Christians have always refused to go along all the way with the metaphysics (e.g. Aquinas refused) but sometimes they do follow it, and this has led to some monstrous deformities in the history of Christianity.
One way or another, all good Christians will, and necessarily, chuck-out this monist metaphysics before they follow it all the way through to the implications.
*
This chucking-out can be done openly or covertly - but either way the metaphysics is in fact being chucked.
The problem of the unacceptable, anti-Christian, implications of classical metaphysics is being avoided, but it is not being solved.
*
For example, to take the monist position that everything is ultimately caused by God, and then to say that God created Man with free will, genuine choice and moral autonomy is just nonsense. It does not make sense.
Metaphysically, it is just incoherent - a fake, a fudge.
The problem has not been solved; instead the problem has been concealed behind a confused and confusing formulation.
But if people are happy with this pseudo-explanation... then fine. To be happy with a fake explanation in service of subordinating philosophy to Christianity, is both good and necessary.
*
But some people perceive the fact that this is a philosophical fake, and it bugs them so much that they regard the situation as a reductio ad absurdum of monism and classical theology; and then the usual monist position doesn't work.
Welcome to pluralist Christianity!
*
If your theology works for you - and does not distort your Christian faith - fine.
My position is that theology, philosophy, metaphysics - should serve Christianity, and be subordinate to it.
I'm trying to do something else - I'm trying to do theology in the 'pragmatist/ pluralist' school/ style of William James; and am therefore using different metaphysical presuppositions.
*
Why? Because they solve some of the metaphysical problems which lie nearest the core of Christianity, while pragmatism provides a clear and coherent explanation of the core things.
I mean things like how God can be wholly Good and wholly loving of us, yet there is vast suffering; and how Men have real free will - real autonomy of choice.
Pragmatism/pluralism also solves the problem (and this is a subject about which I have not yet blogged) of the suffering caused by natural disasters (meteor collisions, volcanoes and earthquakes, harsh weather, predation and disease). Simply: These need not be God's will (although some specific instances will be).
*
In other words pragmatism solves - or rather does not have in the first place - some of the toughest and most faith destroying (and most historically-divisive) problems with Classical Metaphysics.
This is impressive!
Pragmatism has its own problems, and these are as ineradicable as the problem of free will is ineradicable for monism; but these problems are not at the core of Christian belief - so I think pluralism is - on the whole - better!
*
But the problems of monism, of classical theology really are ineradicable.
If God caused everything, he did all evil. The numerous attempts to argue otherwise are disingenuous or confused - people sometimes almost deliberately attempting to confuse themselves by piling on further hypotheses, or simply losing track of their arguments.
But the real situation is crystal clear.
The get-out clause about everything being for the good but incomprehensible is unacceptable to Christians since it leaves Man utterly unable to judge for himself over anything at all; and in a position where there is nothing to do but submit to the will of God, which must appear arbitrary.
Yet this would not be Christian but the other major monotheism. And this just is where that kind of metaphysics takes you.
*
Wise Christians have always refused to go along all the way with the metaphysics (e.g. Aquinas refused) but sometimes they do follow it, and this has led to some monstrous deformities in the history of Christianity.
One way or another, all good Christians will, and necessarily, chuck-out this monist metaphysics before they follow it all the way through to the implications.
*
This chucking-out can be done openly or covertly - but either way the metaphysics is in fact being chucked.
The problem of the unacceptable, anti-Christian, implications of classical metaphysics is being avoided, but it is not being solved.
*
For example, to take the monist position that everything is ultimately caused by God, and then to say that God created Man with free will, genuine choice and moral autonomy is just nonsense. It does not make sense.
Metaphysically, it is just incoherent - a fake, a fudge.
The problem has not been solved; instead the problem has been concealed behind a confused and confusing formulation.
But if people are happy with this pseudo-explanation... then fine. To be happy with a fake explanation in service of subordinating philosophy to Christianity, is both good and necessary.
*
But some people perceive the fact that this is a philosophical fake, and it bugs them so much that they regard the situation as a reductio ad absurdum of monism and classical theology; and then the usual monist position doesn't work.
Welcome to pluralist Christianity!
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)