The idea of saving the appearances, or saving the phenomena, is that deep explanations should explain superficial explanations. For instance, scientific models of the movements of planets should be able to model and predict the movements of the real planets.
The same idea ought to apply to religious 'models' includings all the various explanations in scripture, doctrine, and formal theology - yet it is surprising how often they don't.
Consider reincarnation. Reincarnation - of widely varying detailed explanations - seems to be a spontaneous, natural and universal human belief except where is is contradicted by culture - in other words, all tribal religions (animistic, totemistic), plus many Eastern religions in the spectrum of Hinduism and Buddhism include reincarnation.
I infer that reincarnation (in its various guises) is an attempt to save these appearances - to explain, model, systematize some basic human experience or intuition. In some way people experience and feel something (this is 'the appearance') that leads them to create various models of reincarnation that 'save' (explain) these experiences and feelings.
It is interesting that mainstream Christianity did not, and did not attempt to, save the appearances when it came to reincarnation - it simply stated that reincarnation was not true, did not happen - and implied that any of the feelings or experiences that led to so many millions of people positing reincarnation as an explanation for them, were merely some kind of delusion.
What were these 'appearnaces'? I think the basic one is the feeling that 'my life did not begin at my birth (or ceonception)'.
Most people do not have any specific (certainly not any detailed) memories of a previous life or lives; but many people do have a sense that their 'current' mortal life was not the beginning of life for them - there was 'something' of themselves, some kind of essence (spirit, soul or incarnate body or whatever) existing before their conception or birth. Some already existing entity which took-on a body and became an incarnate mortal.
In sum, I think this feeling of some past existence is the basis of theories of reincarnation.
I suspect that this rather vague, but pretty solid, feeling is the basis of the theoretical elaborations of reincarnation.
However, I do not think there is any similar intuition about future reincarnations and their nature and purpose - and indeed these explanations are widely variable between religions; nor do I believe that the sense of having been specifically 'incarnated' i.e. having had a different body - is a part of spontaneous experience.
One strength of Mormonism is that it does explain the most basic intuitions, feelings, experiences concerning a previous life - although the link between the intuitions of Mankind and the doctrinces of Mormonism is seldom made. But Mormonism can say - yes, your feelings are valid; and we can explain them; but not by reincarnation, instead by pre-mortal spirit existence.
This is saving the appearances.
Friday 13 November 2015
Wednesday 11 November 2015
What is the best argument for atheism?
Any suggestions?
The question was prompted by this:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/being-a-bright-darkens-the-intellect/#more-14843
My answer: The best argument for atheism is the null hypothesis that: There Is No God.
If it is assumed that there is no God unless proven otherwise - then it is difficult honestly to avoid being an atheist - because it feels like there never can be enough 'proof' for such a massive assertion.
The reason that atheism is at such high prevalence in the modern West is that this culture inculcates the assumption that there is no God as if it were common sense, necessary - and perhaps even the only sane assumption.
The reason that the majority of humans alive now, and pretty much all of them in the past, were theists is that the natural, spontaneous, inborn assumption of human beings is apparently something along the lines that god/s is/are real, important, influential in the world and in each person's life.
So atheism is one aspect of modern nihilism - the modern failure to assume, to asumme the non-validity-of (to 'problematize) what is spontaneous and natural to Man; and therefore to disbelieve in the objective reality of truth, beauty, virtue; purpose, meaning and relatedness; faith, hope and love; the need for Men to live in, and as, a family...
Our fundamental assumptions about life dictate pretty much everything else - these fundamental assumptions are termed metaphysical - and modernity teaches us that there is no such thing as metaphysics, that it is deceptive nonsense.
By thereby rendering modern metaphysical assumptions invisible, modernity renders atheism (etc) apparently unchalleangeable.
When humans accept, as they mostly do, their inbuilt knowledge and awareness of god/s - then theism is natural, and indeed undisproveable.
It is all a matter of assumptions. So the proper question moves onto considering what are the proper and valid grounds for such assumptions...
Yep! - the inbuilt, invisible prior assumption of the validity of atheism is certainly the strongest 'argument' for atheism.
The question was prompted by this:
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/being-a-bright-darkens-the-intellect/#more-14843
My answer: The best argument for atheism is the null hypothesis that: There Is No God.
If it is assumed that there is no God unless proven otherwise - then it is difficult honestly to avoid being an atheist - because it feels like there never can be enough 'proof' for such a massive assertion.
The reason that atheism is at such high prevalence in the modern West is that this culture inculcates the assumption that there is no God as if it were common sense, necessary - and perhaps even the only sane assumption.
The reason that the majority of humans alive now, and pretty much all of them in the past, were theists is that the natural, spontaneous, inborn assumption of human beings is apparently something along the lines that god/s is/are real, important, influential in the world and in each person's life.
So atheism is one aspect of modern nihilism - the modern failure to assume, to asumme the non-validity-of (to 'problematize) what is spontaneous and natural to Man; and therefore to disbelieve in the objective reality of truth, beauty, virtue; purpose, meaning and relatedness; faith, hope and love; the need for Men to live in, and as, a family...
Our fundamental assumptions about life dictate pretty much everything else - these fundamental assumptions are termed metaphysical - and modernity teaches us that there is no such thing as metaphysics, that it is deceptive nonsense.
By thereby rendering modern metaphysical assumptions invisible, modernity renders atheism (etc) apparently unchalleangeable.
When humans accept, as they mostly do, their inbuilt knowledge and awareness of god/s - then theism is natural, and indeed undisproveable.
It is all a matter of assumptions. So the proper question moves onto considering what are the proper and valid grounds for such assumptions...
Yep! - the inbuilt, invisible prior assumption of the validity of atheism is certainly the strongest 'argument' for atheism.
Why I smashed the television
The other day I knocked-over the television and it landed on something sharp which smashed the screen - although with a modern TV, with a thin screen made of some kind of plastic stuff, you could only see the smash with the power switched on. A rather horrible sight.
The cause was a stupid random mistake - a foot wrongly placed, a momentary loss of balance... But no the mistake wasn't random, but almost inevitable - the 'accident' was the culmination of a series of determined haste, unforced errors, unnecessary compromises, a perfect storm of the interaction of my attitude and cumulative care-less-ness.
I had a lot of chores to do in a limited time; and I did them by taking an antagonistic attitude towards the world - it was me against that world. I literally as well as metaphorically 'put my head down', closed-in on myself, kindled my will - and attempted to cut a swathe through the tasks ahead.
I was busy, I was in a hurry - pushing to complete one after another thing. I had to move the TV away from the job I was doing, but I didn't move it far enough. I needed to stand on a chair to reach the curtain rail - but I didn't quite get the chair to where it ideally ought to be - because the TV was in the way. I unclipped the curtain in an irritated and hasty mood, because I was having to re-do it.
I stepped backward off the chair; felt a bump and heard a crash.
Because I had set myself against the world I was deprived of that harmonious cooperation with the world which is the only thing that gets us through the near-infinite hazards and pitfalls of life - perhaps I even antagonized the world (not all objects are benign - some are just looking for an excuse to get us - some are even more irritable than I).
It has happened before - no doubt it will happen again: it is all about attitude. When I feel 'hassled', rushed, over busy, tired... and am pushing and pushing to impose my will on recalcitrant reality: that's when 'accidents' happen - and the worst ones, the irrevocable ones that cost far more than the price of a new TV.
When will I learn to recognize that mood? - and instead of doubling down and closing-off - to ease my foot off the gas, open my senses and my self to communication with the world - to perceive the proper and harmonious path through reality rather than trying to hack my way through the densest part of jungle with a blunt machete wielded with unhelpful urgency by tiring, uncertain, uncoordinated arms?
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/what-makes-good-or-bad-luck.html
P.S. The illustration is not of my actual TV, but it looked pretty similar.
Tuesday 10 November 2015
Three deep questions for evaluating policy
1. If not, then what?
2. And what will happen then?
3. Is this promoting of Good?
1. If not, then what?
Most public policy discussion is critical - people are generally much better at diagnosis than treatment. indeed much discussion is purely negative.
If not, then what attempts to evaluate the position from which someone is arguing - which is usually not explicit, and indeed may not be known to the person making the argument.
The idea is that rigorous discussion cannot proceed unless there is a statement of basic assumptions. It says: OK I know what you do not like, do not want, think ought to be destroyed - but what do you advocate putting in its place?
A clear example is Christianity: we have had a couple of centuries of detailed diagnosis of the problems of Christianity - its flaws, failures, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, harms and miseries.
But if not Christianity, then what is the alternative? If we don't have Christianity what will we have instead - and is it better? Is the substitute going to be free of problems - free of flaws, failures, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, harms and miseries?
Another relevant maxim here is - No matter how bad things are, they can always get worse. Life in Russia under the Tsar was - no doubt - bad; but no matter how bad it was, Communism was worse. Those who thought (as so many apparently did, within Russia and abroad) 'things can only get better' if we rid ourselves of the Tsar... were pretty soon shown how very wrong they were.
2. And what will happen then?
(This comes from Thomas Sowell) The idea is that when somebody advocates some change, then it is essential to look beyond the introduction of that change - because every significant change will alter incentives; therefore every significant change will lead to some further change. It is this further change which needs to be evaluated - not just the first step.
When 'no fault' divorce was advocated this question was not considered. No fault divorce can be advocated on grounds such as improving short term happiness of at least one of the parties, cheapness and convenience, removing the dishonest and embarrassing need for parties to fake infidelity, the difficulty of objectively assigning blame etc.
But matters don't stop there: it could easily have been predicted that by making divorce not just easier and less expensive but a merely a matter of unilateral preference; this would (and did) have the effect of completely destroying marriage as a contract (because a contract which can be discarded at the preference of just one of the parties is not a contract at all).
Furthermore, because law just-is moral - and there is no such thing as moral neutrality - then no fault divorce converted divorce from a bad thing to a 'human right'.
No fault divorce meant no-victim divorce - because neither party was blamed nor defined as guilty, then there was no innocent party in a divorce. Being divorced became more shameful than divorcing - because actively divorcing was a strong statement of personal development and growth, while being divorced was merely pathetic, dumb, a thing that happened to losers.
And divorce became merely a matter of money - instead of having a guilty and innocent party, there are now just financial winners and financial losers (and everybody loves a winner, don't they?)
3. Is this promoting of the Good?
One of the many evils of moral concepts such as Human Rights is that people fixate upon violations of freedom, sufferings and miseries of particular types of person in particular circumstances - and introduce policies to enforce certain rights, freedoms, and removes some causes of human suffering without considering whether this is a Good thing, or not?
Whether something is Good cannot be evaluated by some process of identifying and adding or subtracting human happiness and suffering - not least because these are incalculable.
But we can reflect on whether something is a Good thing or not; and, in particular, it is often very clear that something being decriminalized, defended or advocated on the basis of the supposed effects on human gratification is not a Good thing.
Consider abortion. The debate about the permissibility of abortion, the rules and circumstances, procedures and possibilities - has become vastly complex, with all kinds of special cases being introduced. But it should be made clear at the very outset, agreed upon, and this should inform all subsequent discussion - that abortion is itself not 'a Good thing'.
Nobody actually regards abortion as a Good thing - a cause for celebration; something to be promoted, maximized, done as much as possible, in as many situations as possible, as the basis of a good and healthy and admirable society. (Or, at least, those who do believe this never admit to it.)
Or, as another example, the past fifty years of the sexual revolution has proceeded on the basis of decriminalizing, de-pathologizing, defending the rights of, promoting the self-esteem of (etc.) a whole range of groups who want to have non-traditional sexual relationships outwith a monogamous marriage between husband and wife.
Yet for all the vast mass of argument that unconventional sex, cohabitations and promiscuities are 'not necessarily' and 'not always harmful' to the immediate state of happiness of the parties directly involved - and may even enhance their pleasure, fun, excitement etc... Despite all this, nobody argues that these revolutionary freedoms and rights and lifestyle references are actually, actively, positively a way to create a Good society.
Nobody actually comes out and says that it would be Good if there were no marriages but only a sexual free marketplace with no-strings sex of any and every imaginable kind between anybody who fancies it at that moment; happening all the time, in all places, in public - as much as possible, the more the better...
This is, in fact, where Western societies have been and are heading - but nobody actually promotes this as a Good thing. Indeed, I don't believe anybody at all actually regards it as a Good thing - and those few who really would like to create such a society wish it precisely because they know it would be a Bad thing: and because they are actively seeking evil.
Anyway, I offer these three maxims as possible ways of thinking more clearly about policy.
But, of course, that itself depends on the meta-ethic that clear thinking abut policy is itself a Good thing - and that rests upon some master ideology or religion which either frames and constrains all discourse or any kind between persons - or else there is no real discourse at all - but merely a maelstrom of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Which is the current reality.
2. And what will happen then?
3. Is this promoting of Good?
1. If not, then what?
Most public policy discussion is critical - people are generally much better at diagnosis than treatment. indeed much discussion is purely negative.
If not, then what attempts to evaluate the position from which someone is arguing - which is usually not explicit, and indeed may not be known to the person making the argument.
The idea is that rigorous discussion cannot proceed unless there is a statement of basic assumptions. It says: OK I know what you do not like, do not want, think ought to be destroyed - but what do you advocate putting in its place?
A clear example is Christianity: we have had a couple of centuries of detailed diagnosis of the problems of Christianity - its flaws, failures, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, harms and miseries.
But if not Christianity, then what is the alternative? If we don't have Christianity what will we have instead - and is it better? Is the substitute going to be free of problems - free of flaws, failures, hypocrisies, inconsistencies, harms and miseries?
Another relevant maxim here is - No matter how bad things are, they can always get worse. Life in Russia under the Tsar was - no doubt - bad; but no matter how bad it was, Communism was worse. Those who thought (as so many apparently did, within Russia and abroad) 'things can only get better' if we rid ourselves of the Tsar... were pretty soon shown how very wrong they were.
2. And what will happen then?
(This comes from Thomas Sowell) The idea is that when somebody advocates some change, then it is essential to look beyond the introduction of that change - because every significant change will alter incentives; therefore every significant change will lead to some further change. It is this further change which needs to be evaluated - not just the first step.
When 'no fault' divorce was advocated this question was not considered. No fault divorce can be advocated on grounds such as improving short term happiness of at least one of the parties, cheapness and convenience, removing the dishonest and embarrassing need for parties to fake infidelity, the difficulty of objectively assigning blame etc.
But matters don't stop there: it could easily have been predicted that by making divorce not just easier and less expensive but a merely a matter of unilateral preference; this would (and did) have the effect of completely destroying marriage as a contract (because a contract which can be discarded at the preference of just one of the parties is not a contract at all).
Furthermore, because law just-is moral - and there is no such thing as moral neutrality - then no fault divorce converted divorce from a bad thing to a 'human right'.
No fault divorce meant no-victim divorce - because neither party was blamed nor defined as guilty, then there was no innocent party in a divorce. Being divorced became more shameful than divorcing - because actively divorcing was a strong statement of personal development and growth, while being divorced was merely pathetic, dumb, a thing that happened to losers.
And divorce became merely a matter of money - instead of having a guilty and innocent party, there are now just financial winners and financial losers (and everybody loves a winner, don't they?)
3. Is this promoting of the Good?
One of the many evils of moral concepts such as Human Rights is that people fixate upon violations of freedom, sufferings and miseries of particular types of person in particular circumstances - and introduce policies to enforce certain rights, freedoms, and removes some causes of human suffering without considering whether this is a Good thing, or not?
Whether something is Good cannot be evaluated by some process of identifying and adding or subtracting human happiness and suffering - not least because these are incalculable.
But we can reflect on whether something is a Good thing or not; and, in particular, it is often very clear that something being decriminalized, defended or advocated on the basis of the supposed effects on human gratification is not a Good thing.
Consider abortion. The debate about the permissibility of abortion, the rules and circumstances, procedures and possibilities - has become vastly complex, with all kinds of special cases being introduced. But it should be made clear at the very outset, agreed upon, and this should inform all subsequent discussion - that abortion is itself not 'a Good thing'.
Nobody actually regards abortion as a Good thing - a cause for celebration; something to be promoted, maximized, done as much as possible, in as many situations as possible, as the basis of a good and healthy and admirable society. (Or, at least, those who do believe this never admit to it.)
Or, as another example, the past fifty years of the sexual revolution has proceeded on the basis of decriminalizing, de-pathologizing, defending the rights of, promoting the self-esteem of (etc.) a whole range of groups who want to have non-traditional sexual relationships outwith a monogamous marriage between husband and wife.
Yet for all the vast mass of argument that unconventional sex, cohabitations and promiscuities are 'not necessarily' and 'not always harmful' to the immediate state of happiness of the parties directly involved - and may even enhance their pleasure, fun, excitement etc... Despite all this, nobody argues that these revolutionary freedoms and rights and lifestyle references are actually, actively, positively a way to create a Good society.
Nobody actually comes out and says that it would be Good if there were no marriages but only a sexual free marketplace with no-strings sex of any and every imaginable kind between anybody who fancies it at that moment; happening all the time, in all places, in public - as much as possible, the more the better...
This is, in fact, where Western societies have been and are heading - but nobody actually promotes this as a Good thing. Indeed, I don't believe anybody at all actually regards it as a Good thing - and those few who really would like to create such a society wish it precisely because they know it would be a Bad thing: and because they are actively seeking evil.
Anyway, I offer these three maxims as possible ways of thinking more clearly about policy.
But, of course, that itself depends on the meta-ethic that clear thinking abut policy is itself a Good thing - and that rests upon some master ideology or religion which either frames and constrains all discourse or any kind between persons - or else there is no real discourse at all - but merely a maelstrom of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Which is the current reality.
Public opinion now
In the 1800s, as the mass media began to gather influence mostly via newspapers, the political rulers were wary of 'public opinion' - it seems that they felt that, at times, the country needed to be led in the direction of this thing - public opinion - even against the politician's wishes.
What was it, and why did politicians been led by it? My assumption is that public opinion was, more or less, 'what people are talking about' - more exactly, what the people who might cause trouble were talking about. What people talked about was difficult for the government to control back then - and it took a long time - weeks rather than days - for any politcal influence to be brought to bear. Meanwhile there might be riots, strikes, machine-breaking... and this could spread faster than the ability of the governent to suppress it.
Nowadays I don't hear public opinion mentioned in the way it was in my youth - governments are no longer bothered by it. Indeed, nowadays public opinion (so far as it is mentioned) serves the opposite role than it did in the past. In the past it forced governments to do what they did not want to do; nowadays public opinion is only ever invoked as an excuse for governments to do what they anyway want to do - when some particular person or group is disagreeing.
The reasons for the decline in the status of public opinion is straightforward enough - we live in a world where the media controls politics, and the modern mass media can change what people are talking about in minutes rather than weeks.
And a world in which the public are (willingly) addicted to the mass media - so whatever is in the mass media, is also and instantly in the minds of the public - and not much else is in their minds; because so much of each person's discretionary times and energy is spent in servicing their addiction.
In a world of mass media addiction and domination; the only 'danger' to the mass media view carrying the day comes from disunity among the mass media - internal dissent - which is why so much of the mass media comprises (in effect) journalists talking to journalists.
When the mass media agree on 'the message' then effective public opinion will also agree, instantly - because the public's heads are filled by the mass media, 24/7. The unified-media 'talking points' are what the public talks about, always and instantly: end of story.
And this is what people want: this is what public opinion wants. This is how modern society wants it to be. Just as junkies want more heroin, the public want more mass media - just as junkies want to be high all the time, the public want the mass media all the time.
People slog away at soul-destroying jobs to get the money they need to buy the new technological equipment and access that ensures that they can best stay plugged-into the mass media for every waking moment outside of those soul-destroying jobs.
This is Brave New World, not 1984, because there is so little resistance to the techno-utopia; because the means of our enslavement (and damnation) is not just accepted, not merely loving embraced - but actively-sought and vehemently-defended.
See also: http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/
What was it, and why did politicians been led by it? My assumption is that public opinion was, more or less, 'what people are talking about' - more exactly, what the people who might cause trouble were talking about. What people talked about was difficult for the government to control back then - and it took a long time - weeks rather than days - for any politcal influence to be brought to bear. Meanwhile there might be riots, strikes, machine-breaking... and this could spread faster than the ability of the governent to suppress it.
Nowadays I don't hear public opinion mentioned in the way it was in my youth - governments are no longer bothered by it. Indeed, nowadays public opinion (so far as it is mentioned) serves the opposite role than it did in the past. In the past it forced governments to do what they did not want to do; nowadays public opinion is only ever invoked as an excuse for governments to do what they anyway want to do - when some particular person or group is disagreeing.
The reasons for the decline in the status of public opinion is straightforward enough - we live in a world where the media controls politics, and the modern mass media can change what people are talking about in minutes rather than weeks.
And a world in which the public are (willingly) addicted to the mass media - so whatever is in the mass media, is also and instantly in the minds of the public - and not much else is in their minds; because so much of each person's discretionary times and energy is spent in servicing their addiction.
In a world of mass media addiction and domination; the only 'danger' to the mass media view carrying the day comes from disunity among the mass media - internal dissent - which is why so much of the mass media comprises (in effect) journalists talking to journalists.
When the mass media agree on 'the message' then effective public opinion will also agree, instantly - because the public's heads are filled by the mass media, 24/7. The unified-media 'talking points' are what the public talks about, always and instantly: end of story.
And this is what people want: this is what public opinion wants. This is how modern society wants it to be. Just as junkies want more heroin, the public want more mass media - just as junkies want to be high all the time, the public want the mass media all the time.
People slog away at soul-destroying jobs to get the money they need to buy the new technological equipment and access that ensures that they can best stay plugged-into the mass media for every waking moment outside of those soul-destroying jobs.
This is Brave New World, not 1984, because there is so little resistance to the techno-utopia; because the means of our enslavement (and damnation) is not just accepted, not merely loving embraced - but actively-sought and vehemently-defended.
See also: http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/
Monday 9 November 2015
Encouraging lessons of the Golden Thread
The Golden Thread is a person's real autobiography - the sequence of deep, significant, mythic-seeming, remembered experiences stretching back into childhood like a Golden Thread.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=golden+thread
That we have such a thing, and know we have it, is a cause for gratitude and could be seen as evidence of our relationship with a personal god - because we do not experience our life as merely the present built on nothing more than oblivion; and our life is unique.
In a sense, our Golden Thread is incommunicable, a secret reality - certainly it is not always communicated, and attempts to communicate it may prove futile as we may fail to put it into effective words, and other people may not be interested. Indeed there is no reason why others should be interested in the special significance we feel about incidents and thoughts that may seem utterly individual and trivial when placed into the public arena.
The fact that a great novelist might be able to show us the transcendent importance of the tiny incidents of everyday life does not mean that this aptitude is general. If I were to describe to you an incident from my own Golden Thread, it would indeed require something like the structure of a novel to be placed around it, for you to be able to grasp what it was about that particular moment which was so important to me... but the fact is that, in most instances, I do not know the reason.
Man is not an island, and we cannot live from our memories alone - nor are we supposed to. In a sense we live-off hope more than from memories - but the 'we' that lives comes partly from the past, and some experiences shape us far more than others, and the most significant experiences are not necessarily the most impressive, nor are they those the significance of which we can articulate most effectively. This is the mystery and depth of the Golden Thread phenomenon.
But why think about it at all? I suppose many or most people do not, in fact, think much about such matters - although who knows for sure what the scale of importance really is for others.
From my own experience, I find the reasons why thinking about such matters feels like 'a good thing' is that it makes for a mythic sense of my own life.
Instead of life being a detached sequence of this then this, passively experienced as being caused, mostly influenced from outside, mostly of little interest or approval to others... there is instead the experience of life as significant, our specific life as being bound-up-with, involved with, the world; a sense of unrolling yet unpredictable destiny, where the past makes some kind of sense and therefore - presumably - the future also will.
This is simply given to each of us as a phenomenological reality - the reality of subjective, inner, experience - by the existence of the Golden Thread and the experience of thinking about it.
The necessary additional step we may chose to make is to believe that all this is just what it seems: a kind of knowledge - something true, real, significant.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=golden+thread
That we have such a thing, and know we have it, is a cause for gratitude and could be seen as evidence of our relationship with a personal god - because we do not experience our life as merely the present built on nothing more than oblivion; and our life is unique.
In a sense, our Golden Thread is incommunicable, a secret reality - certainly it is not always communicated, and attempts to communicate it may prove futile as we may fail to put it into effective words, and other people may not be interested. Indeed there is no reason why others should be interested in the special significance we feel about incidents and thoughts that may seem utterly individual and trivial when placed into the public arena.
The fact that a great novelist might be able to show us the transcendent importance of the tiny incidents of everyday life does not mean that this aptitude is general. If I were to describe to you an incident from my own Golden Thread, it would indeed require something like the structure of a novel to be placed around it, for you to be able to grasp what it was about that particular moment which was so important to me... but the fact is that, in most instances, I do not know the reason.
Man is not an island, and we cannot live from our memories alone - nor are we supposed to. In a sense we live-off hope more than from memories - but the 'we' that lives comes partly from the past, and some experiences shape us far more than others, and the most significant experiences are not necessarily the most impressive, nor are they those the significance of which we can articulate most effectively. This is the mystery and depth of the Golden Thread phenomenon.
But why think about it at all? I suppose many or most people do not, in fact, think much about such matters - although who knows for sure what the scale of importance really is for others.
From my own experience, I find the reasons why thinking about such matters feels like 'a good thing' is that it makes for a mythic sense of my own life.
Instead of life being a detached sequence of this then this, passively experienced as being caused, mostly influenced from outside, mostly of little interest or approval to others... there is instead the experience of life as significant, our specific life as being bound-up-with, involved with, the world; a sense of unrolling yet unpredictable destiny, where the past makes some kind of sense and therefore - presumably - the future also will.
This is simply given to each of us as a phenomenological reality - the reality of subjective, inner, experience - by the existence of the Golden Thread and the experience of thinking about it.
The necessary additional step we may chose to make is to believe that all this is just what it seems: a kind of knowledge - something true, real, significant.
Sunday 8 November 2015
Mozart's sweet, simple, sublime song to marriage - from The Magic Flute
PAMINA (the woman):
In men, who feel love
A good heart is not lacking.
PAPAGENO (the man):
To sympathize with the sweet instincts
Is then the wives first duty.
PAPAGENO AND PAMINA:
We want to be happy with love
We live through love alone,
We live through love alone.
PAMINA:
Love sweetens every torment
Every creature offers itself to her.
PAPAGENO:
It seasons our daily lives,
It beckons us in the circle of nature.
PAMINA and PAPAGENO:
Its higher purpose clearly indicates,
Nothing is more noble than wife and man,
Man and wife, and wife and man,
Man and wife, and wife and man,
Reach to the height of Godliness.
Man and wife, and wife and man,
Reach to the height of Godliness.
To Godliness, to Godliness.
NOTES: In my opinion, the Magic Flute - an opera by Mozart - is the most sublime of all musical works. It is also simple and tuneful and comprehensible enough to be enjoyed by a child.
The duet here is in praise of marriage as a divine sacrament - but is not sung between lovers. The women is Pamina who is the princess, destined to marry the handsome Prince Tamino after passing successfully through trials to test the courage and purity. The man is Papageno - Tamino's sidekick, and a simple birdcatcher.
So, perhaps the sweetest of all songs to marriage is sung - sibling-like - by two companions each of whom loves and will marry another.
Only Mozart could have written this. The first verse is a very simple tune - close to being a a popular or folk song... then listen to what Mozart does with his decorations to the second verse. It makes your hair stand on end.
And, as so often with Mozart, it is the woodwind of the orchestra (flutes, oboes, clarinets, bassoon) who are at work in pointing-up the very best passages.
This version is beautifully sung and superbly acted, in a Swedish translation for Ingmar Bergman's movie version - which I cannot recommend too highly: it is one of the best films I have ever seen.
Papageno is an impulsive character, who has no interest in being a hero; but simply wants a wife and lots of children - he fails all the trials, but is nonetheless rewarded for his good heart and generous nature by a similar mate called Papagena.
This is wonderfully well done in the movie - combining innocence and 'sexiness' in a rare and wonderful way:
God's plan in 2000 words (and the importance of pre-mortal, motal and post-mortal life) - from Elder Robert D Hales
Excerpts:
I have
often pondered the hopelessness of God’s children wandering in the dark and
dreary world, not knowing who they are, where they came from, why they are here
on earth, or where they are going after their mortal lives.
We need
not wander. God has revealed eternal truths to answer these questions. They are
found in His great plan for His children. In the scriptures this plan is known
as the “plan of redemption,”1
the “plan of happiness,” and the “plan of salvation.
By
understanding and obediently following God’s plan, we keep ourselves from
wandering off the path that leads back to our Heavenly Father. Then, and only then, can we live the kind of life He leads, which is “eternal
life, … the greatest of all the gifts of God."
The gift
of eternal life is worth any effort to study, learn, and apply the plan of
salvation. All humankind will be resurrected and receive the blessing of immortality. But to achieve
eternal life—the life God leads—is
worth living the plan of salvation with all our heart, mind, might, and
strength...
In a
premortal council, Heavenly Father explained to us His plan of redemption.
The plan was based on doctrine, law, and principles that have always existed.
We learned that if we accepted and followed the plan, we would be required to willingly
leave our Father’s presence and be tested to show whether we would choose to
live according to His laws and commandments.
We rejoiced at this opportunity
and gratefully sustained the plan because it offered us the way to become like
our Heavenly Father and inherit eternal life.
But the
plan was not without risk: if we chose in mortality not to live according to
God’s eternal laws, we would receive something less than eternal life.
Father knew we would stumble and sin as we learned by experience in mortality,
so He provided a Savior to redeem from sin all who repent and to heal the
spiritual and emotional wounds of those who obey.
Once we
understand the grand panorama of the plan and see ourselves in it, we gain
something invaluable, even essential: eternal perspective. Eternal perspective
informs our daily decisions and actions. It steadies our minds and souls. When
persuasive but eternally flawed opinions swirl about us, we are steadfast and
immovable.
As Elder
Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught:
“Without an understanding of the plan of salvation, including our premortal
existence and the judgment and the resurrection, trying to make sense of this
life by itself would be like seeing only the second act of a three-act play.”
We must understand the first act (premortal life) in order to know how to make
the best choices in the second act (mortal life), which will determine what
happens to us in the third act (postmortal life).
From:
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2015/10/the-plan-of-salvation-a-sacred-treasure-of-knowledge-to-guide-us?lang=eng
Elder Hales is one of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon church, and somewho whose talks at General conference speak to me in a very direct and personal way. He seems to me a man of great intelligence and ability; and also (which is much rarer and more precious) of great sweetness and simplicity.
Saturday 7 November 2015
CS Lewis's four wisest works
CS Lewis was certainly a wise man - and almost everything he wrote (including ephemeral correspondence) has at least glimmers of this wisdom; but there are four of his works in particular, which seem to me to be the wisest - by the test of my returning to them most often in thought:
The Screwtape Letters
The Great Divorce
That Hideous Strength
The Last Battle
The Screwtape Letters
The Great Divorce
That Hideous Strength
The Last Battle
Karl the Bosch Engineer - Saturday morning trivia...
Here is an amusing advert (or series of adverts) I came across a while back when researching the purchase of a new washing machine - good concept, great casting:
Friday 6 November 2015
Nihilism and annihilation
While theories about undeveloped amygdala, or the rabbit strategy of
welcoming predators into an overpopulated meadow may have some merit,
when you see a man who wishes to destroy himself and his homeland, look
to the formation of his conscience for the answer to this dark and ugly
riddle.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/postnihilism
[Postnihilism I would define as 'what happens after nihilism': i.e. the psychological consequences of nihilism.]
There are many blindspots in the sad, psychotic, death-seeking Western world - and one is the refusal to see that the mainstream public account of the basic nature of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' leads to nihilism, alienation and despair - a life that is self-defined as meaningless, purposeless and utterly alone.
(And that a life bursting with Twitter, parties, holidays and sexual experiments makes not the slightest difference.)
Modernity not only teaches, but propagandizes for, celebrates futility.
Yet refuses to examine the premises which lead to this conclusion.
You might imagine that if your basic beliefs lead to inevitably despairing consequences, then the first thing to do is examine those beliefs: to check whether they really are entailed and unavoidable? Whether the basic beliefs are a consequence of honest enquiry - or, whether the basic beliefs are just as much a part of the shallow, spinning, soundbite culture as are the despairing conclusions?
Modern culture would have us believe that its fundamental basic beliefs in nothingness are simply the result of hard-nosed 'science'. (There is no God because science.) But the people asserting this... well, do they strike you as thoughtful people? Do they strike you as deep people - as people who have grappled with the nature of the human condition through the long watches of the night; pondering in solitude and in earnest conversation before reluctantly and with searing misery concluding that life is nothing?
It is the way that fundamental problems are death with that appals - by not dealing with them; by the most impatient and cursory repetition of platitudes, that is so appalling about modern postnihilism.
It is as if we have thrown-away not just life but even the possibility of life, and done it on a whim! - and the only tenacity and long term stubborness evident in our culture, and in its representative people, is the refusal to reconsider the validity of this arbitrary, passive, un-thinking opinion.
We are sure of nothing except that reality is nothingness. And this is not the kind of conclusion that we can ignore, because the meaning (or unmeaning) of life underpins every conversation, every news report, every human communication.
Nihilism batters us in explicit assertions, but it also permeates our being as the air we breathe and the water we drink: the whisper that it all means nothing, nothing nothing...
The world offers unprecedented distraction, pleasure, fun - yet we seem to want only death. And that is, alas, perfectly rational. If someone finds life worthless because it feels bad now, then how can we persuade that life is nonetheless worthwhile - except by suggesting it may not feel so bad in the future, so why not stick around and see? To which the obvious response is why bother?
Telling a despairing man about his enormous and expanding scope to forget about the ultimate questions, and instead immerse himself in fun and games is an answer (if it is any kind of answer) to a different problem - not the state of postnihilism that has driven The West to embrace its own cultural and personal annihilation.
(Nihilism... annihilation... The link, the causality, isn't exactly subtle!)
http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/postnihilism
[Postnihilism I would define as 'what happens after nihilism': i.e. the psychological consequences of nihilism.]
There are many blindspots in the sad, psychotic, death-seeking Western world - and one is the refusal to see that the mainstream public account of the basic nature of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything' leads to nihilism, alienation and despair - a life that is self-defined as meaningless, purposeless and utterly alone.
(And that a life bursting with Twitter, parties, holidays and sexual experiments makes not the slightest difference.)
Modernity not only teaches, but propagandizes for, celebrates futility.
Yet refuses to examine the premises which lead to this conclusion.
You might imagine that if your basic beliefs lead to inevitably despairing consequences, then the first thing to do is examine those beliefs: to check whether they really are entailed and unavoidable? Whether the basic beliefs are a consequence of honest enquiry - or, whether the basic beliefs are just as much a part of the shallow, spinning, soundbite culture as are the despairing conclusions?
Modern culture would have us believe that its fundamental basic beliefs in nothingness are simply the result of hard-nosed 'science'. (There is no God because science.) But the people asserting this... well, do they strike you as thoughtful people? Do they strike you as deep people - as people who have grappled with the nature of the human condition through the long watches of the night; pondering in solitude and in earnest conversation before reluctantly and with searing misery concluding that life is nothing?
It is the way that fundamental problems are death with that appals - by not dealing with them; by the most impatient and cursory repetition of platitudes, that is so appalling about modern postnihilism.
It is as if we have thrown-away not just life but even the possibility of life, and done it on a whim! - and the only tenacity and long term stubborness evident in our culture, and in its representative people, is the refusal to reconsider the validity of this arbitrary, passive, un-thinking opinion.
We are sure of nothing except that reality is nothingness. And this is not the kind of conclusion that we can ignore, because the meaning (or unmeaning) of life underpins every conversation, every news report, every human communication.
Nihilism batters us in explicit assertions, but it also permeates our being as the air we breathe and the water we drink: the whisper that it all means nothing, nothing nothing...
The world offers unprecedented distraction, pleasure, fun - yet we seem to want only death. And that is, alas, perfectly rational. If someone finds life worthless because it feels bad now, then how can we persuade that life is nonetheless worthwhile - except by suggesting it may not feel so bad in the future, so why not stick around and see? To which the obvious response is why bother?
Telling a despairing man about his enormous and expanding scope to forget about the ultimate questions, and instead immerse himself in fun and games is an answer (if it is any kind of answer) to a different problem - not the state of postnihilism that has driven The West to embrace its own cultural and personal annihilation.
(Nihilism... annihilation... The link, the causality, isn't exactly subtle!)
Thursday 5 November 2015
Two really enjoyable jazz solos - The Wombles theme (clarinet) and Steeleye Span's Dance with me (fiddle)
Q: What do these pieces have in common?
A: Both produced by Mike Batt.
PC Tokenism versus Leftist Propaganda in Doctor Who
All mainstream modern mass media TV, movie, novel narratives are politically correct - but there are two ways of being PC - and one is a lot worse than the other.
Some modern stories give the impression of having been conceived independently, then politically correct elements were secondarily added in order to to throw a bone to the Thought Police. This is what the Social Justice Warriors accurately call 'tokenism' - e.g. casting a woman or racial minority actor in the role of high status character such as a judge or the president, but without this affecting the motivations, plot or action.
While tokenism is annoying and diminishing to a creative work, and is a constant reminder of the power and dominance of the New Left, it can be tolerated - and 'bracketed-out'.
But what is intolerable is the opposite - when the storyline is PC propaganda, and the narrative integrity is token. When the whole 'point' of it is political propaganda, and the story is simply a manipulative tool to try and make the ideology effective and memorable.
An example is the ongoing Doctor Who episode The Zygon Invasion, scripted by Peter Harness; which is a pro-mass-immigration political allegory - crudely dressed-up as a Doctor Who episode.
I could not last-out the whole episode once I recognised what was going-on (which did not take long!) but it is an example of the very worst kind of Soviet style propaganda at almost every level - but given a high production gloss.
So we have strong preaching of pacifism/ willing victim status in line with the author being Peter Harness who wrote Kill The Moon last year - which was (by a large margin) the Worst-Doctor-Who-Episode-Ever (therefore naturally he was paid to write more on the same lines).
We have not just a female-led, but apparently all-female UNIT - which is there to show us how the military ought to be done.
(i.e. spending most of the time gossipping about the doings of the 'alpha male", sharing personal feelings and sympathizing for personal feelings, disobeying orders, breaking down and crying - and, in general, failing to use just force to defend the Good.)
Indeed it has become common in this incarnation to have the screen mostly filled either with the Doctor surrounded by women and minorities (and minority women) - or else just have the women and minorities dominating the plot, and the Doctor absent.
Doctor Who in the post-revival form has been heavy on tokenism - with far too much emphasis on the Companion (and even the Companion's family, for goodness sakes!) - in a crude, and successful, attempt to woo a female audience by turning Scifi into Soap.
(Some of the Rose and later Donna episodes closely resembled the egregious East Enders - which is a very popular and long-running soap about a collection of vile Cockney harridans, sluts and thugs meant to be 'ordinary people'.)
But the new Doctor has been crossing the line from tokenism into propaganda; and crossing the line between something I can just about accept, into something that I cannot bear at any price. With David Tennant we had the Doctor as a superhero (rather than a wizard).
But now with Capaldi we are getting Clara as the leader, and the Doctor as a cowardly and pathetic middle-aged sidekick . A Platonic sugar daddy to his beloved Clara; in seventies style Ray Bans and Electric guitar (posing like a superannuated rockstar 'ambassador' such as Bono - making peace signs on the stairway of his private 'World Presidential' jet).
And when action is needed the Doctor behaves like a dependent wimp; texting Clara for help more than a hundred times! She casually shrugs off this appeal until it is convenient for her to answer - clearly establishing 'who wears the trousers' in this 'marriage' - and characterizing the Doctor as an weird internet stalker.
So, expicitly and with emphasis, we now have a Doctor who cannot even start doing anything to solve a crisis without the go-ahead from his strong, fearless, beatifully dressed, and utterly dominant younger girlfriend... I mean Companion.
So even the basic character of the Doctor, as signalled by his clinging and insecure relatonship with the Companion, has been subverted and sacrificed and forced into service as political propaganda; teaching us how men and women ought to relate in the coming Leftist utopia of willed and embraced 'alien' invasion and takeover...
In conclusion, I can tolerate tokenism up to a point, which is just as well because it is now universal; but when I am offered crude allegorical propaganda for self-hatred and willed-suicide, dressed up as drama, then I switch-off or walk away - and I do not return.
See also: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=doctor+who
Some modern stories give the impression of having been conceived independently, then politically correct elements were secondarily added in order to to throw a bone to the Thought Police. This is what the Social Justice Warriors accurately call 'tokenism' - e.g. casting a woman or racial minority actor in the role of high status character such as a judge or the president, but without this affecting the motivations, plot or action.
While tokenism is annoying and diminishing to a creative work, and is a constant reminder of the power and dominance of the New Left, it can be tolerated - and 'bracketed-out'.
But what is intolerable is the opposite - when the storyline is PC propaganda, and the narrative integrity is token. When the whole 'point' of it is political propaganda, and the story is simply a manipulative tool to try and make the ideology effective and memorable.
An example is the ongoing Doctor Who episode The Zygon Invasion, scripted by Peter Harness; which is a pro-mass-immigration political allegory - crudely dressed-up as a Doctor Who episode.
I could not last-out the whole episode once I recognised what was going-on (which did not take long!) but it is an example of the very worst kind of Soviet style propaganda at almost every level - but given a high production gloss.
So we have strong preaching of pacifism/ willing victim status in line with the author being Peter Harness who wrote Kill The Moon last year - which was (by a large margin) the Worst-Doctor-Who-Episode-Ever (therefore naturally he was paid to write more on the same lines).
We have not just a female-led, but apparently all-female UNIT - which is there to show us how the military ought to be done.
(i.e. spending most of the time gossipping about the doings of the 'alpha male", sharing personal feelings and sympathizing for personal feelings, disobeying orders, breaking down and crying - and, in general, failing to use just force to defend the Good.)
Indeed it has become common in this incarnation to have the screen mostly filled either with the Doctor surrounded by women and minorities (and minority women) - or else just have the women and minorities dominating the plot, and the Doctor absent.
Doctor Who in the post-revival form has been heavy on tokenism - with far too much emphasis on the Companion (and even the Companion's family, for goodness sakes!) - in a crude, and successful, attempt to woo a female audience by turning Scifi into Soap.
(Some of the Rose and later Donna episodes closely resembled the egregious East Enders - which is a very popular and long-running soap about a collection of vile Cockney harridans, sluts and thugs meant to be 'ordinary people'.)
But the new Doctor has been crossing the line from tokenism into propaganda; and crossing the line between something I can just about accept, into something that I cannot bear at any price. With David Tennant we had the Doctor as a superhero (rather than a wizard).
But now with Capaldi we are getting Clara as the leader, and the Doctor as a cowardly and pathetic middle-aged sidekick . A Platonic sugar daddy to his beloved Clara; in seventies style Ray Bans and Electric guitar (posing like a superannuated rockstar 'ambassador' such as Bono - making peace signs on the stairway of his private 'World Presidential' jet).
And when action is needed the Doctor behaves like a dependent wimp; texting Clara for help more than a hundred times! She casually shrugs off this appeal until it is convenient for her to answer - clearly establishing 'who wears the trousers' in this 'marriage' - and characterizing the Doctor as an weird internet stalker.
So, expicitly and with emphasis, we now have a Doctor who cannot even start doing anything to solve a crisis without the go-ahead from his strong, fearless, beatifully dressed, and utterly dominant younger girlfriend... I mean Companion.
So even the basic character of the Doctor, as signalled by his clinging and insecure relatonship with the Companion, has been subverted and sacrificed and forced into service as political propaganda; teaching us how men and women ought to relate in the coming Leftist utopia of willed and embraced 'alien' invasion and takeover...
In conclusion, I can tolerate tokenism up to a point, which is just as well because it is now universal; but when I am offered crude allegorical propaganda for self-hatred and willed-suicide, dressed up as drama, then I switch-off or walk away - and I do not return.
See also: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=doctor+who
The God of Thunder - A limerick for kids
The thunder god sat on his horse -
A brave and noble filly -
"I'm Thor!" - he cried.
The Horse replied:
"Then fetch a thaddle, thilly!"
(Works best when spoken.)
Recollected from BBC 2 children's programme Play Away, recited by Brain Cant, circa 1974.
Wednesday 4 November 2015
Bach, Mozart, Beethoven; turgid, trite and clumsy - On learning about classical music
When I was a child, it seemed to me that classical music was all the same. It also seemed that adults who liked classical music liked it all.
So when I decided to try and appreciate classical music, in one sense I did not know where to start; in another sense I thought it did not matter.
But when I did start, I began with tackling The Great Composers. Luckily, the nearby city of Bristol had an LP library; so I began borrowing a couple of discs a week - also listening to the classical music channel on the radio (BBC Radio 3).
I soon found that I had strong preferences - not just between musical eras (I liked best the baroque and classical) but between the works of a specific composer. Indeed, I found that even the Great composers, the ones whom I fully agreed were Great, wrote a lot of dud and dull music... some more than others.
But when they wrote 'bad' stuff, the Great Composers exhibited different kinds of badness.
When JS Bach is bad, and because he wrote such a lot - a lot of it is bad, especially the vocal music for church performance; he is worthy, dull and constipated. He desperately needs an enema. When inspiration flags in the day-to-day chore of composition, Bach grinds-out the music with technical correctness and zero inspiration.
(A friend, who was one of the most musical people I have ever met - and who later worked as a BBC Radio 3 producer, used to opine that most of Bach needed 'a drum kit' to enliven it - and would start miming a driving rhythm during what he termed the 'turgid' passages.)
But genius is all of-a-piece; and the greatness of Bach (in strictly musical terms, the supreme greatness) is a product of that same earnestness and attention to detail which leads to the turgidity of many uninspired cantatas and fugues.
Mozart is never as dull as Bach at his most constipated; but much or Mozart, indeed most of Mozart - essentially everything he wrote in his childhood, youth and early years - is trite: merely decorative patterning, which because it lacks the complexity of Bach, sometimes seem like be a maddening waste of time.
Bach may be crushingly boring; Mozart is always superficially-charming but often feels like being stuffed with chocolates.
But the very greatest works of Mozart have exactly that easy-listening simplicity which makes his lesser output seem such a trivial timewaste - when Mozart touches the heights (and nobody touches higher) the effects come from something indefinable but transcendentally beautiful that is added to, or infuses, something close to bathos...
...Well, I don't need to say more, because the essence of the genius of Mozart was perfectly captured in this scene from the movie Amadeus, written by Peter Shaffer:
By the way, this piece excerpted is the Serenade for 13 wind instruments in B flat major K 361 - and is one of the very best - and most Mozartian - things Mozart ever did.
Beethoven was a man at his best when striving; a composer of strength, energy; we seem to feel him grappling the material into shape, and triumph at his triumphs against the odds.
There are a few places where Beethoven successfully produces relaxed, unstressed music (such as the really lovely, but uncharacteristic, Pastoral Symphony); but it is part of Beethoven's struggle that on the one hand he sometimes fails to win.
And then Beethoven just comes across as clumsy - and exhibits technical failures, ugliness, clunkiness in a way never seen in Bach or Mozart.
This is the case in many of Beethoven's attempts at writing fugues; and most obviously in much of the Ninth 'Choral' symphony, where there or examples of horribly big holes in the orchestration, abrupt gear changes, and sustained howling required from the chorus which is extremely wearing. The Hammerklavier piano sonata is similar. He was trying so very hard to be great, that it shows.
And some of Beethoven's 'light music', done as commissions and not from inner need - are like an elephant trying to dance a ballet.
His variations on God save the Queen I recall as excruciating (and never listened again) - it was a task (probably not worth doing) calling for lightness of touch and fluency - Mozartian charm - but in trying to make something significant out of fluff, Beethoven becomes embarrassing - something Bach and Mozart never are.
But then, Beethoven's courage in over-reaching and trying so obviously hard, made his work the main fulcrum of the classical tradition - his work changed the direction of music and created wholly new possibilities and range in the symphony, the concerto, the sonata, even in opera. Composers lived-off Beethoven for a century, and when this impulse became exhausted, the classical tradition declined and (all but) died.
For this reason, many would regard Beethoven - for all his adolescent oafishness and buffoonery, indeed because of it - as the greatest of them all.
So when I decided to try and appreciate classical music, in one sense I did not know where to start; in another sense I thought it did not matter.
But when I did start, I began with tackling The Great Composers. Luckily, the nearby city of Bristol had an LP library; so I began borrowing a couple of discs a week - also listening to the classical music channel on the radio (BBC Radio 3).
I soon found that I had strong preferences - not just between musical eras (I liked best the baroque and classical) but between the works of a specific composer. Indeed, I found that even the Great composers, the ones whom I fully agreed were Great, wrote a lot of dud and dull music... some more than others.
But when they wrote 'bad' stuff, the Great Composers exhibited different kinds of badness.
When JS Bach is bad, and because he wrote such a lot - a lot of it is bad, especially the vocal music for church performance; he is worthy, dull and constipated. He desperately needs an enema. When inspiration flags in the day-to-day chore of composition, Bach grinds-out the music with technical correctness and zero inspiration.
(A friend, who was one of the most musical people I have ever met - and who later worked as a BBC Radio 3 producer, used to opine that most of Bach needed 'a drum kit' to enliven it - and would start miming a driving rhythm during what he termed the 'turgid' passages.)
But genius is all of-a-piece; and the greatness of Bach (in strictly musical terms, the supreme greatness) is a product of that same earnestness and attention to detail which leads to the turgidity of many uninspired cantatas and fugues.
Mozart is never as dull as Bach at his most constipated; but much or Mozart, indeed most of Mozart - essentially everything he wrote in his childhood, youth and early years - is trite: merely decorative patterning, which because it lacks the complexity of Bach, sometimes seem like be a maddening waste of time.
Bach may be crushingly boring; Mozart is always superficially-charming but often feels like being stuffed with chocolates.
But the very greatest works of Mozart have exactly that easy-listening simplicity which makes his lesser output seem such a trivial timewaste - when Mozart touches the heights (and nobody touches higher) the effects come from something indefinable but transcendentally beautiful that is added to, or infuses, something close to bathos...
...Well, I don't need to say more, because the essence of the genius of Mozart was perfectly captured in this scene from the movie Amadeus, written by Peter Shaffer:
By the way, this piece excerpted is the Serenade for 13 wind instruments in B flat major K 361 - and is one of the very best - and most Mozartian - things Mozart ever did.
Beethoven was a man at his best when striving; a composer of strength, energy; we seem to feel him grappling the material into shape, and triumph at his triumphs against the odds.
There are a few places where Beethoven successfully produces relaxed, unstressed music (such as the really lovely, but uncharacteristic, Pastoral Symphony); but it is part of Beethoven's struggle that on the one hand he sometimes fails to win.
And then Beethoven just comes across as clumsy - and exhibits technical failures, ugliness, clunkiness in a way never seen in Bach or Mozart.
This is the case in many of Beethoven's attempts at writing fugues; and most obviously in much of the Ninth 'Choral' symphony, where there or examples of horribly big holes in the orchestration, abrupt gear changes, and sustained howling required from the chorus which is extremely wearing. The Hammerklavier piano sonata is similar. He was trying so very hard to be great, that it shows.
And some of Beethoven's 'light music', done as commissions and not from inner need - are like an elephant trying to dance a ballet.
His variations on God save the Queen I recall as excruciating (and never listened again) - it was a task (probably not worth doing) calling for lightness of touch and fluency - Mozartian charm - but in trying to make something significant out of fluff, Beethoven becomes embarrassing - something Bach and Mozart never are.
But then, Beethoven's courage in over-reaching and trying so obviously hard, made his work the main fulcrum of the classical tradition - his work changed the direction of music and created wholly new possibilities and range in the symphony, the concerto, the sonata, even in opera. Composers lived-off Beethoven for a century, and when this impulse became exhausted, the classical tradition declined and (all but) died.
For this reason, many would regard Beethoven - for all his adolescent oafishness and buffoonery, indeed because of it - as the greatest of them all.
Tuesday 3 November 2015
The nature of a possible Christian mass revival in The West - a speculation
I believe that all good reform and repair in the West (a reversal of its corruption, nihilism, self-hatred, alienation; and embrace of evil as the inversion of Good) awaits a mass Christian revival among the native population - lacking which we lack the necessary quality and strength of motivation actually to make things net-better.
I do not think a mass Christian revival seems likely - but if it happened what might it look like?
First some negatives:
1. Revival will not come from an Episcopal church - that is, a church ruled by full-time Bishops. The Western malaise comes from the secular Leftism of the ruling elites, the Bishops are members of this elite and the Bishops have been corrupted into secular Leftism along with the rest of their class: they have led their churches into apostasy and ruin because they care more for their status among their class, than before God.
2. It should go without saying, but revival certainly will not come from a Liberal' church. Not all Liberal policies are anti-Christian, but those that are not, are nonetheless signed suicide notes. For example, the feminization of a church is not so much a theological problem, as a matter of stepping onto a greasy slope leading down to the extinction (or utter subordination) of that church: there have been innumerable examples and no counter examples.
Liberalization is secularism - Liberal church priorities are secular priorities. But real Christian priorities are usually the opposite of secular priorities; because the institutional role of the church is often to counteract the lopsided blindnesses of mainstream politics.
3. Not evangelical. The most successful Christian churches over the past half century in the West and among the native population have been Evangelical Protestant, Bible based churches (i.e. those whose attitude to scripture is that it is 'inerrant' - i.e. the churches that get called 'fundamentalist'). (This category also includes the charismatic and Pentecostal type churches.)
These churches have been the only mainstream groups that have bucked the trend of decline, expanding in numbers, attracting men and young people, and sustaining above replacement sized families.
But mainstream secularism seems to have got the measure of the Evangelical challenge, and the growth is now mainly among immigrants rather than natives, and some transfers of serious Christians from collapsing liberal churches. Also, there has been a general failure of the Evangelical leadership, and most have picked the secular side on one or more of the litmus test issues to do with the sexual revolution (e.g. 'no fault' divorce, ordination of women, status of extra-marital sexual relationships, redefinition of marriage).
If the Evangelical movement was going to lead to revival, it would have happened by now. And what applies to Evangelicals, also applies to small denominations and new Christian churches that have had some success in growing over the past century; including Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists - they remain each very small, and growth among native Westerners has plateaued, and they are becoming increasingly immigrant churches.
(Which is fine from a Christian perspective, in a sense; but not from the premise of this essay - which is the need for a Western Christian revival before Western civilization can cease becoming more and more evils in many ways.)
So, my general conclusion is that if there is to be a mass Christian revival in the West, and among native Westerners, it will be some new kind of thing - some new kind of church.
1. It would need a great leader, or else it would not happen. It would need to recruit most of its leadership class from outwith the Western elites - because Western elites are so deeply corrupt.
2. Because it is new, the church would need to show signs of divine validation - to 'prove' or at least show that it really is a Christian revival, and not just a mass cult. So there would need to be many and convincing miracles and other strong evidence of the Holy Ghost at work. (I suspect that modern miracles would need to go beyond healing in order to be convincing - because we are used to 'medical miracles' and can explain away almost anything miraculous in the medical realm.)
3. Membership would need to be 'instant' (and not after prolonged education or preparation - there being no suitable people to do this) - rather like the conversions in the Acts of the Aspostles; presumably by immersive baptism. Like all successful churches it would need to recruit predominantly from men, from young men particularly - and among them including plenty of vigorous and healthy young men.
4. The basic message would arise from repentance and recognition of the corruption and evil craziness of the modern West; but would need to be one of great hope and optimism, but not for this world but the next: in other words, it would be a 'Millennial' kind of movement. The message would, of course, need to be clear and simple (as for any mass movement).
But, due to the extent of corruption among the Western leadership class, it 'lifestyle' would not be as rule based as in the past (because there is no-one, no elite cadre, to enforce complex and detailed rules) - so the rules would need to be few and simple and clear; and a lot of the practical morality would need to be a matter of discerning and following inner guidance.
These speculations are Not a blueprint for the kind of church that I personally would like - although I would be pleased to see any kind of Christian revival. They are intended to give an idea of what might, potentially, happen.
And to alert myself and others to the fact that an effective modern Christian revival might have features that are new and in contrast with most existing churches; it might well appear to be a rather strange and unrespectable and scary kind of thing. This would present a problem in the sense that the Politically Correct secular Left elite would find it easy and justifiable to exterminate any incipient organized and growing, energetic religious movement among young native men - on the basis that it is a species of 'fascism'.
This would mean, I think, that the movement would be, would need to be, apparently 'harmless' and indeed apparently one which fitted well with the plans and needs of the ruling elites - at least until it had grown large and could protect itself.
Yet of course, if a movement is truly Christian it cannot be deceptive or dishonest about its intentions.
From this I infer that such a movement would achieve its successes not by any kind of active resistance, or confrontation, or 'fighting': but in a miraculous way - by remarkable 'coincidences' and strokes of 'luck'; by their enemies plans somehow having the opposite to intended effects...
The movement might be a fire in the hearts, a sense of destiny, a preparation and waiting... and then very soon that destiny visibly unrolling, and the simple and solid faith that this will continue.
I do not think a mass Christian revival seems likely - but if it happened what might it look like?
First some negatives:
1. Revival will not come from an Episcopal church - that is, a church ruled by full-time Bishops. The Western malaise comes from the secular Leftism of the ruling elites, the Bishops are members of this elite and the Bishops have been corrupted into secular Leftism along with the rest of their class: they have led their churches into apostasy and ruin because they care more for their status among their class, than before God.
2. It should go without saying, but revival certainly will not come from a Liberal' church. Not all Liberal policies are anti-Christian, but those that are not, are nonetheless signed suicide notes. For example, the feminization of a church is not so much a theological problem, as a matter of stepping onto a greasy slope leading down to the extinction (or utter subordination) of that church: there have been innumerable examples and no counter examples.
Liberalization is secularism - Liberal church priorities are secular priorities. But real Christian priorities are usually the opposite of secular priorities; because the institutional role of the church is often to counteract the lopsided blindnesses of mainstream politics.
3. Not evangelical. The most successful Christian churches over the past half century in the West and among the native population have been Evangelical Protestant, Bible based churches (i.e. those whose attitude to scripture is that it is 'inerrant' - i.e. the churches that get called 'fundamentalist'). (This category also includes the charismatic and Pentecostal type churches.)
These churches have been the only mainstream groups that have bucked the trend of decline, expanding in numbers, attracting men and young people, and sustaining above replacement sized families.
But mainstream secularism seems to have got the measure of the Evangelical challenge, and the growth is now mainly among immigrants rather than natives, and some transfers of serious Christians from collapsing liberal churches. Also, there has been a general failure of the Evangelical leadership, and most have picked the secular side on one or more of the litmus test issues to do with the sexual revolution (e.g. 'no fault' divorce, ordination of women, status of extra-marital sexual relationships, redefinition of marriage).
If the Evangelical movement was going to lead to revival, it would have happened by now. And what applies to Evangelicals, also applies to small denominations and new Christian churches that have had some success in growing over the past century; including Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists - they remain each very small, and growth among native Westerners has plateaued, and they are becoming increasingly immigrant churches.
(Which is fine from a Christian perspective, in a sense; but not from the premise of this essay - which is the need for a Western Christian revival before Western civilization can cease becoming more and more evils in many ways.)
So, my general conclusion is that if there is to be a mass Christian revival in the West, and among native Westerners, it will be some new kind of thing - some new kind of church.
1. It would need a great leader, or else it would not happen. It would need to recruit most of its leadership class from outwith the Western elites - because Western elites are so deeply corrupt.
2. Because it is new, the church would need to show signs of divine validation - to 'prove' or at least show that it really is a Christian revival, and not just a mass cult. So there would need to be many and convincing miracles and other strong evidence of the Holy Ghost at work. (I suspect that modern miracles would need to go beyond healing in order to be convincing - because we are used to 'medical miracles' and can explain away almost anything miraculous in the medical realm.)
3. Membership would need to be 'instant' (and not after prolonged education or preparation - there being no suitable people to do this) - rather like the conversions in the Acts of the Aspostles; presumably by immersive baptism. Like all successful churches it would need to recruit predominantly from men, from young men particularly - and among them including plenty of vigorous and healthy young men.
4. The basic message would arise from repentance and recognition of the corruption and evil craziness of the modern West; but would need to be one of great hope and optimism, but not for this world but the next: in other words, it would be a 'Millennial' kind of movement. The message would, of course, need to be clear and simple (as for any mass movement).
But, due to the extent of corruption among the Western leadership class, it 'lifestyle' would not be as rule based as in the past (because there is no-one, no elite cadre, to enforce complex and detailed rules) - so the rules would need to be few and simple and clear; and a lot of the practical morality would need to be a matter of discerning and following inner guidance.
These speculations are Not a blueprint for the kind of church that I personally would like - although I would be pleased to see any kind of Christian revival. They are intended to give an idea of what might, potentially, happen.
And to alert myself and others to the fact that an effective modern Christian revival might have features that are new and in contrast with most existing churches; it might well appear to be a rather strange and unrespectable and scary kind of thing. This would present a problem in the sense that the Politically Correct secular Left elite would find it easy and justifiable to exterminate any incipient organized and growing, energetic religious movement among young native men - on the basis that it is a species of 'fascism'.
This would mean, I think, that the movement would be, would need to be, apparently 'harmless' and indeed apparently one which fitted well with the plans and needs of the ruling elites - at least until it had grown large and could protect itself.
Yet of course, if a movement is truly Christian it cannot be deceptive or dishonest about its intentions.
From this I infer that such a movement would achieve its successes not by any kind of active resistance, or confrontation, or 'fighting': but in a miraculous way - by remarkable 'coincidences' and strokes of 'luck'; by their enemies plans somehow having the opposite to intended effects...
The movement might be a fire in the hearts, a sense of destiny, a preparation and waiting... and then very soon that destiny visibly unrolling, and the simple and solid faith that this will continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)