Bruce Charlton's Notions

These are the skeleton lecture notes for my lecture-course in the second year of the degree, which are available to students for revision/ checking (they take lecture notes in the class in real time as their primary resource).

These are more-or-less what I lectured-from this year, but what I actually said and wrote on the board was somewhat more and other than this.

Still, they may be of some interest to somebody...

http://baronofjesmond.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/psy-2016-abnormal-psychology-and.html

From: https://mereorthodoxy.com/why-we-should-jettison-the-strong-female-character
In some cases, pop culture producers play very directly to the ‘second screen’ and the social and political concerns and values of a connected audience. Doctor Who—a science fiction series aimed predominantly at children, but with an extensive and obsessive adult audience—is an example of a TV show whose writers are frequently winking through the window of the fourth wall. Episodes of Doctor Who over the last few years have contained numerous pointed and typically gratuitous references to contemporary socially progressive concerns such as same-sex marriage, queer sexuality, transsexualism, and various feminist themes. These references usually serve no ostensive plot purpose: They are incongruous and odd, violating Chekov’s gun principle. They draw attention to themselves in a way that often seems intentional and preachy, seemingly calling for us to attend, while simultaneously chiding us for paying attention to that which should be treated as entirely natural and unexceptional. However inauthentic they may appear on the ‘first screen’, though, they play very well on the second. The intensification of the messages of such media has much to do with the development of the spectacle they offer into a means of self-signalling in the age of the internet, as audiences become more visible to themselves within a spectacle of their own.

The question is – are the writers of (generally) high quality TV and other mass media such as Doctor Who and Sherlock motivated primarily by the artistic demands (which are conservative) – or do they fulfil the artistic demands as a means to the end of inserting these ‘subversive’ moments of winking through the fourth wall?

Is that what primarily and strategically motivates them as writers, and everything else is just tactics to get people to watch and be influenced by these moments?

(Like TV executives for whom ‘good’ programming is merely a way of getting lots of people to watch the adverts.)

A difficulty with living in a society run by an evil leadership class is that (from a Christian perspective) fewer jobs are good jobs; ever-more jobs do more harm than good.

Many jobs are explicitly and directly harmful (eg 'diversity' type jobs); but nearly all jobs - and essentially all well paid and high status jobs - do net-harm subversively and indirectly (which, in the long run, may be worse).

So the employee is rather in the position of a concentration camp guard: the harder he works, the more overtime he does, the more he studies to be effective: the more harm he does. The better he does his job, the worse it is for everybody.

*

I went into medicine with a notion of being in a job that did good; but as a newly qualified doctor I could not shake the feeling that overall I was doing more harm than good by routine over-investigation, over-treatment, medicalizing people's problems and lives... Well, if that was so for a doctor thirty-something years ago, how much more for most people now, and in most jobs.

It is not a matter of simply getting-out of the few bad jobs (e.g. avoiding the state bureaucracy and NGOs), but that - as secular Leftism has infiltrated and subverted more and more of life - finding anywhere better than you are now. For most people in The West, a change of job is simply to escape out of one frying pan and into another. Non-government frontline productive jobs may be more harmful than government/ diversity jobs; when it comes to PC witch-hunting and wicked mission statements the private sector is usually as bad as the public, and for the same reasons.

There is nowhere to escape to; and this is no accident - but all 'part of the plan'.

*

So, as Christians, we find ourselves in a situation where we our net efforts are directed to destroying that which we most value; and putting by-far the preponderance of our life efforts into the subversion, destruction and inversion of Christianity. And this is no accident but precisely the primary goal of 'teh system', and it becomes more so every year.

What is to be done? Firstly, and most importantly, we must be honest that this is our own exact personal situation - we ourselves are working against Christian goals - and must repent.

At present far too many Christians are defensive about the fact that they are paid to destroy Christianity and to oppose Christian goals (whether directly or indirectly). They solve their cognitive dissonance by lying to themselves and to others. They are eager to point-out that the work they do is 'at least' not as bad as X; or claim (perhaps truly) that they are always on the look-out for little ways in which to evangelize their co-workers, and 'do good' in a quiet way...

Fine and necessary, but it does not alter the basic fact of the case: A concentration camp guard may lay off the torture a bit, say a kind word here and there, may give prisoners a little extra treat from time to time - but he is still part of a system dedicated to torment and extermination.

*

If we can't do anything to change the system for the better (and probably we, personally, cannot) - then we must at minimum stop trying to deny that the system is overall and ever-more opposed to Christian good; and stop trying to convince ourselves and others that the system is not really all that bad.

From Romanticism Comes of Age by Owen Barfield (1944 First edition) pp 60-61

[Note: I have lightly edited this passage for the sake of clarity of meaning - it is a condensed, not literal, transcription.]

**

What is anthroposophy? Believing without a shred of evidence everything that Rudolf Steiner chose to say?

This is exactly what it is not.

Anthroposophy is knowledge, as it is expressed and grasped by the Consciousness Soul; and the Consciousness Soul knows first and foremost that anybody's thought - once it is conceived in ideas and expressed in words - must be alloyed with error. 

It is easy to understand Steiner's extreme reluctance to have his lectures recorded; and it is easier still to realize why he kept on repeating, almost to exasperation, such phrases as 'what is contained in', 'what is reflected by'...

'Think these thoughts without believing them', he once said; and in nearly all of his utterances he employed the mode of pure assertion - and not of discursive argument; although he could syllogize as well as anyone if he chose to (as he showed in The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity). 

It is therefore really a kind of betrayal of the founder of anthroposophy to believe what he said. He poured-out his assertions because he trusted his hearers not to believe.  

Belief is something which can only be applied to systems of abstract ideas. To become an anthroposophist is not to 'believe', but to decide to use the word of Rudolf Steiner for the purpose of raising oneself to a kind of thinking which is beyond words, which precedes words. 

This is 'concrete' thinking, neither objective nor subjective, which is the source of all ideas and propositions, the source of all meaning whatsoever. And it can only take the form of logical ideas, propositions and grammatical sentences at the expense of much of its original truth.

To be an anthroposophist is to seek to unite oneself with this concrete thinking, whose existence can only finally be proved by experience.  

When I recently read - line-by-line and with great concentration - Owen Barfield's What Coleridge Thought; I found myself completely convinced, in complete agreement, until the final two chapters concerning God and Society, when I blocked. I was no longer convinced, I lost the thread, I lost my interest...

It did not take long before I understood what had happened: Coleridge/ Barfield were mystical/ paradoxical Trinitarians in the sense of Classical Metaphysics and mainstream Christian theology - whereas I adhere to pluralistic Mormon metaphysics. For them, ultimately all is one and identified by God - for me, ultimately all is more-than-one; and indeed God is irreducibly multiple - God the Father and Mother in Heaven forming an irreducible dyad; The Father and the Son distinct personages, and the Holy Ghost another.

For Coleridge/ Barfield, everything fundamental is polar: everything irreducible is has distinguishable polarities that cannot be divided; and the ultimate polarity of God and Man. But for me God and each Man are divided - they are another dyad. Dyads are divided, and cannot be united: dyads are divided but related - and the ultimate relation is love.

For Coleridge/ Barfield the Trinity is polar, and love is the dynamism within that indivisible polarity; for me, the Godhead is divided but indissolubly related, and love is that dynamism which relates it: Love is, in fact, ultimately that which holds the universe together.

For me, the creation includes things that are dynamism within unity (i.e. polarity) - which are (I think...) Goethe's Archetypal Phenomena; but above that there are things that are dynamism-between unity (i.e. divinities). Ultimately, reality is multiple: a multiplicity consisting of dyads. 

1. Philosophy alone is inconclusive (as may be seen from the history of philosophy sans theology).

2. Philosophy can and should be based upon fundamental (preferably intuitive) assumptions.

3. But the validity of these assumptions - and the relative ranking among them - relies upon divine revelation. (Nothing else will suffice.)

4. The validity of divine revelation depends upon the divinity being creator; it is because divinity is the creator that the divinity has knowledge. 

5. Divine revelation to a Man implies a personal God; who has a personal relationship with that Man (why else would divinity communicate with Man?).

6. That divine revelation is true depends on the love of God towards Man. (A hostile divinity would not reliably communicate truth.)

7. That divine revelation happens, implies that God wants Man to ascend from his current situation, and to attain divine knowledge.

You probably are living in false consciousness NOW - at least for nearly all the time; because almost everybody in the West lives in false consciousness.

This has a definite meaning - it means that you consciousness, your sense of self-awareness is located in the persona and not the self. Your persona is the public you; the set of learned, automatic, expedient responses built-up through childhood, adolescence and early adulthood. For many - most - people this is where they dwell consciously almost the whole time - with only brief flickers and glimmers of cosciousness from the self.

How do you know where you consciousness is currently located? One way is that when you are living from the self you are aware that everything is alive, communicating, and you respond to this.

If, on the other hand, the 'outer' world is experienced as material, inert, dead, unresponsive, non-communicative; then you are living from your persona: you are in a state of false consciousness.

This is bad, because it is the self which is partly-divine; and living with-out it, your life will have neither meaning nor purpose. 

Note: The self and the persona can be distinguished but not divided or separated - neither can exist without the other and both are always present in a person; and the persona has a vital role. However, we are meant to use the persona only to do jobs that are best done as automatic routine and without constant attention - including skills such as such as driving a car or playing a musical instrument. We are not supposed to have the persona living our lives for us - according to unthinking routine; but that is the sitiation for most modern people most of the time - and apparently for some people all of the time - where the self never gets activated in communication with other people and the environment.

Teddy Robinson was the hero of several books of children's stories written and illustrated by Joan G Robinson (1910-1988); he was the Teddy Bear belonging to her daughter Deborah who is the heroine of the stories. They were popular enough when I was a child that several volumes were in our tiny local library, and they are still in print including the collection 'Teddy Robinson Stories' which I bought to read my daughter. For many years she kept it by her bed to read in case she woke up after a nightmare - because the world of these books is a wholly delightful one.

These stories are perfect of their kind; very cleanly written and neatly structured, with amusing pictures that depict Teddy's character, an atmosphere that is cosy and warm-hearted, stories full of incident and (moderate!) excitement, and the whole pervaded by characteristically English humour (for the children) and wit (for the adult storyteller).

The set-up is that we mostly hear Teddy Robinson's internal monologue (including poems) and conversations with other toys, wild animals and the like; but Teddy Robinson is a real Teddy Bear and can't speak to humans - and we (as adults) notice that nothing happens to him which could not happen in real life; including that he seems to need to be moved, rather than able to move himself, while also remaining unaware of this limitation.

Teddy Robinson has a very appealing character, being basically kind, droll and forgiving; but prone to irritability and misunderstandings with other toys and animals. One particularly funny story describes how he sees another Teddy in the window of a house across the road, whom he initially likes-the-look-of and is keen to meet; but somehow they get embroiled in an 'arms race' of dressing-up and adornment; until he starts to find the other Teddy conceited and nasty. Eventually the two Teddys (and the girls who look after them) meet and are mutually hostile until the misunderstanding is revealed.

In sum; perfect bedtime stories to read to the very young child, or be read to the somewhat older child - and the kind of book which stimulates childrens' imaginations, does them good, and encourages creative play.

I came across the work of Gurdjieff through the books of Colin Wilson - and I was particularly captivated by the idea of self-remembering which is the term for theose moments when we are aware of Me! Here! Now!

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/self-remembering.html

But beyond my secondhand acquaintance via Wilson, I made no further progress with Gurdjieff; indeed quite the reverse. I found his books (and those of Ouspensky, his most famous disciple) completely unreadable, to the point that I could not progress more than a few sentences before being paralyzed with demotivation.

When a movie was produced of Meetings with Remarkable Men in 1979, I was very eager to see it (easier to watch a movie than read a book, I thought) - but did not get the opportunity until the next summer when I was in Toronto, Canada. To say the film was a disappointment is an understatement - it was perhaps the most forgettable and under-whelming couple of hours I have ever spent at the movies; I remember literally nothing about it except a picture of a desert mountainside, and the sense of disappointment afterwards.

(Of course, the movie was directed by Peter Brook, who was one of the most-over-rated, pretentious, boring and hollow theatre/ film directors of all time - so realistically I should not have expected otherwise.)

When Colin Wilson wrote a biography of Gurdjieff in 1986 I was keen - finally - to get to grips with Gurdjieff; perhaps find the key to understanding him? The books is good, as a book - this was a period when everything Wilson wrote was worth reading. But the man himself...

Gurdjieff comes across as a psychopath - much on the lines of another author of that ilk, Carlos Castaneda. In other words; manipulative, impulsive, selfish, abusive, sadistic and quite staggeringly dishonest. Like Castaneda he was wildly evasive and self-contradictory about his place of birth and even his date of birth/ age, so nobody could check even the basic facts about his tall tales.

Of course, Gurdjieff was not just a psychopath - in the sense that he also had talent, intelligence, insights and a massive charismatic charm - so he did have some interesting things to say. But his literary abilities and powers of explanation seemed negative rather than positive - so almost everything written about him and his views come from disciples, acolytes and other admirers.

Furthermore, at the end of the day everything Gurdjieff proposed was merely 'therapy' - it was about feeling better, feeling more alive, having more energy and being more effective. This is fine, so far as it goes - but it does not go far enough. And in the end usually does more harm than good and subverts itself as being merely a transient and subjective psychotherapy.

Gurdjieff had no religious vision, and provided no transcending sense of purpose. He was, therefore, a prescursor of the more dangerous, exploitative and self-serving type of 'sixties cultist or New Age guru.

But well worth reading about - especially when Wilson is on hand to extract the nuggets of wisdom from the sensational and scandalous life story (if you can believe it all - which I don't).

I am not sure why; but it has become a fixed habit for intellectual Christians to think theologically using concepts drawn from physics - physics as the 'master metaphor' with divinity understood as light or a kind of abstract force like magnetism - love understood as a kind of attraction or force-field etc. Then people become 'captivated' by the metaphor - and the metaphor ends-up being in-charge; with Christianity being fitted-into-it. (I have been in this situation myself, several times!) This has been going since at least as long ago as the third century AD, and probably the second.

I try to break this habit of conceptualizing Christianity in a physics-y way, and to stick to the idea of ultimate reality as working along the lines of family relationships. God as our Father, Jesus as elder brother; men and women as God's children who inherit divinity from him and so forth.

And what holds it together is love. Given the extreme and central importance of love in Christianity, there are problems with abstract physics-type thinking making love into something like a gravitational force, or a pervasive gas, or whatever. Love is really an interpersonal kind of cohesion, the cohesion of living, sentient beings.

But for most modern people, this would restrict the operations of love to the world of Men and God (and Angels, perhaps) and leave-out most of the universe - which would still be explained, ultimately, in terms of physics. However, I personally try to regard everything that is, as in some way alive and conscious; and therefore regard everything in creation as part of this same network of loving relationships that binds Men, Angels, and God. So, love takes the place of physics - ultimately.

What is fascinating to contemplate is how modern man got the idea that the universe is not-alive - and that there is a division between the living (biological) and non-living (chemical and physical) universe; and a further division between the conscious (human) and non-conscious (everything else) world. To believe this requires an extreme, and in a sense suicidal, psychological move; whereby reality is made into grossly simplified models (e.g. scientific theories, philosophical descriptions) that exclude the role of humans, including the role of human thinking.

Then having creating this grossly simplified model - which we know for certain to be radically incomplete, hence untrue - we moderns come to believe (in public discourse, anyway) the model as necessarily true - despite that we know for certain it is not!

The sum total of 'evidence' for the truth of our simple and false model is that it is apparently useful, as a rule of thumb, in some situations, when dealing with the world - predicting and manipulating things (but only approximately)!

Most bizarre...

Anyway, if we can cure ourselves of this foolish and unjustifiable habit of making known-false models then believing them as true; and return to the the spontaneous human way of thinking of everything as more-or-less alive and conscious - then we can understand the whole of reality in a truly Christian way --- Instead of the mainstream Christian practice of regarding Christianity as no more than a tiny bubble of human and divine and loving relationships, utterly swamped by a vast, unbounded universe of deadness and meaninglessness; a purposeless mechanistic realm of clockwork causality mixed with chaos...

The reason we are alive - why we are here, now as incarnated mortal Men - is so that we can become more divine, more God-like: the process of divinization, theosis, sanctification, spiritual progression.

This is why there exists the earth and all the people and things on it - as the place where we work on spiritual progression towards divinity. Indeed, that is why there is anything at all - it is the reason for creation - everything exists towards the primary purpose that some individual Men may (by their choice, and long, long endeavour and learning extending after mortal-death) become more and more like God, aiming for a distant time when some people can 'relate to' God on the same level.

The purpose of this life is not really 'salvation' - we are not born as mortal men in order 'to be saved'. The meaning of salvation is merely that a person has recognized that the true purpose of life is divinization. In other words, when you recognize that your purpose in life is spiritual progression towards a God-like nature, then you are saved - you have been saved.

When you, personally, recognize that the actual life you are living is for the purpose of you becoming more like God, then this is extraordinarily motivating and encouraging. Life becomes both mysterious (trying to understand what this goal means here and now, in the minutiae of daily life) while being sure that there is a real answer to the mystery.

With theosis as primary, my life and your life becomes an adventure, a trial (trial and error) like wandering through uncharted terrain towards an invisible but definite goal - with the process of learning being the main point here-and-now, but the direction of travel giving point to it all and ensuring that the overall experience is Good.

Only we, we ourselves as individuals, can do this - and we can do it. Everything necessary is within us or provided.

We are sure to make many mistakes - things seem set-up to guarantee that, presumably so that we can learn from recognizing them; therefore the key thing is not to try and avoid all possibility of mistakes, so much as to do the best you can manage and acknowledge and learn from your mistakes (this is called repentance).

Being a Christian is not about being Good, but about aiming for Good; it is not about avoiding error, but about acknowledging error. It is not about being saved, but of making proper use of the fact that we are saved (assuming we don't reject that salvation).

But Christian divinization is not about becoming the same as God, nor becoming the same as Jesus; it is about being the way God wants us to be - which obviously is to be (as we already are) unique individuals with unique experiences - such that each person will become (if he chooses and works long enough) an unique god: our-selves as a god (not some kind of replica of Jesus).

The vital importance of Jesus Christ is that he is our elder brother went before and achieved divinity - he made it possible and we know it is possible, because of Jesus.

To a large extent, therefore, our job in theosis is to do what God wants us to do, behave in the kind of way God wants us to behave (which is clearly enough known) - rather than to try and be like God, or Jesus, or any other personage.

Divinization is not a standard protocol and Men are not supposed to be 'clones; but each person has an unique path starting from where he or she actually is; all aiming at the same ultimate destination and according to the same basic rules - but each having very different experiences along the way.    

Peter Kreeft was present when Solzhenitsyn gave his speech at Harvard in 1978, which he calls one of the greatest speeches in the history of civilization. Here he analyzes the impact it made upon him by going through the text and interjecting the impact it made at the time.
The full text is here: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/SolzhenitsynHarvard.php

**

I also find this a great speech, an extremely deep analysis and diagnosis; and I also regard Solzhenitsyn as a genuine prophet.

But when it comes to the matter of moving from diagnosis to treatment - Solzhenitsyn's focus is naturally and rightly on Russia, where seventy years of vicious repression (falling not far short of attempted extermination) failed to suppress devout Orthodox Christianity among the masses - such that Russian governments still need the cooperation and assistance of the church in order to govern. On top of this, there has been a powerful revival of Christianity among the intellectual ruling elites - whose abandonment of the church from the latter 19th century was what had enabled the Russian Revolution to happen. These elites have since 1989 to a significant (although partial) extent embraced Christianity to the point that it has been fashionable and prestigious enough for people to profess faith insincerely.

The contrast with the West is striking. Here we also experienced the intellectual elites turning against Christianity - although that happened much earlier, from the 18th century - but there is no sign of a Christian revival in this group. Furthermore the Western masses are now also very thoroughly de-Christianized - (except in the middle regions of the USA, to some diminishing extent) the West utterly lacks the groundswell of mass piety which has proved ineradicable in Russia, even in the absence of priests or (worse) the presence of anti-Christian/ atheist/ informer/ KGB 'priests'.

Such serious Christianity as survives in the West is mostly among the lower middling kind of people, and is not focused on a single denomination or church but spread across many independent and often mutually-hostile groups - including Pentecostalists and ultra-Protestant home churches and the recently-founded US Christian churches from the 1800s such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh Day Adventists.

Spiritually speaking, therefore, the West is in far worse shape than Russia - just as Solzhenitsyn categorically stated even forty years ago and while the USSR was still in place. And while a revival of Orthodoxy as the unified state religion is clearly the right and best thing for Russia - and is actually happening with the distinct possibility (not likelihood, so far; but a definite possibility) that the Tsardom may be restored in the medium term.

But there is no equivalent single answer for the West. If the West puts all its eggs into one basket (one Christian church, one denomination) then that basket would necessarily be pitifully small and weak because it lacks both elite and mass support.

So what could be done in the West - what might be a basis for Christian hope, which we feel but cannot realistically articulate?

1. We need to recognize that it has never been easier to be a Christian than now, here, in the West! Matters are clearer than ever before: it’s a no brainer! Suddenly, this fact may become very obvious to very many people. Let’s be ready if it does.

2. At present, in the West, we need to think of Christianity at the individual level - not in terms of organizations.

3. Serious Christians must stop quibbling over definitions and differences. This should be easy - if they really are Christian and not legalistic Philistines. Those who really love Jesus and are themselves loving will not have trouble setting aside their differences and getting along with each other.

4. Christians therefore should minimally be 'defined' as people who are religious and Christ-centred in their aspirations; serious Christians as those believe that Christianity should be the primary factor in the conduct of life - including the organization of society.

In other words, I suggest that serious Christians are those who regard Christianity as more important than politics, economics, personal or sexual freedom, national prestige - or anything else. This is not to say that 'nothing else matters' - everything needs to be balanced - but when two aspects need to be fitted-together it is the politics/ economics/ sexuality which is fitted-to Christianity, and not vice versa. 

This has nothing to do with forcing people to be Christian - which is impossible by definition. But serious Christians are those who recognize that nothing is more important than Christianity - and therefore laws, attitudes and social practices should ultimately be consistent with Christianity.

5. So if, by great good luck and some abrupt and widespread recognition of the truth of Christianity, there is a mass and massive Christian revival in the West; then our attention will be on individual souls, and not on the organizations.

All through my childhood, I spent three weeks a year in Newbiggin by the Sea - my Father's birthplace and where his parents still lived. Therefore I can understand this man, Ronnie, being interviewed with his friend Jackie about the inshore fishing boats called cobles - because this is how my family mostly spoke (on both sides), and the people who lived around them.

Whether other people can understand these characters is somewhat doubtful...

He is speaking the English dialect distinctive to the mid-Northumbria coalfield region (a coalmine is called a 'pit' - hence the nickname); it is a variant of the Northumbian dialect which is unique for the way that the letter R is pronounced in the throat with the uvula, rather than at the front of the mouth with the tongue.

Marvellous!

Christians in The West sometimes yearn for a cohesive Christian church - a strong Christian church, with strong leaders, and strong support from many adherents - with power to resist, roll-back and take-over the nihilistic secular regimes of our day to restore (some denomination of) Christianity as the national religion.

But I suspect this is a deception, a delusion, and impossible...

At any rate we are further from such a situation than any society ever has been in the past 2000 years. The main role such an idea plays is to set Catholics against Protestants, and Eastern and Western Catholics against each other - and to divert Christianity into abstract political speculations about imaginary SciFi scenarios where they have somehow been handed power and need to decide what to do with it...

The growing points of devout, life-changing Christianity in the West are mostly at a much smaller scale of organization - even when they occur within the framework of large church organizations, the 'good things' are happening at a small scale and among tiny minorities.

This seems understandable, given that the problem with modern Western Christianity is weakness of faith, not difficulties of organization - indeed, the nature of corruption in the West being top-down emanating from the ruling elites, and given the extreme corruption of those elites (especially by the sexual revolution), means that it is the organizational structures which are most destructive of Christianity, even when those structures are 'A Church'.

(i.e. With a corrupt ruling class, insofar as church leaders are drawn from that upper class, any church of whatever denomination is intrinsically more of a mainstream generic - hence secular Leftist - organization than it is specifically a church.)

From where we stand, we simply can't return to the previous situation of being Christian secondary to unconscious adherence to a church. Probably that would not be a good thing even if we could - but we cannot. Now, even the most strict and 'ultramontaine' Roman Catholics are Protestants in their minds - in the sense that they choose to whom to give their allegiance; they are aware that the leadership is working for secular Leftism; they are forced to choose and they know that they personally have-chosen (and could have chosen otherwise).

Because of the nature of our society - the simple, taken-for granted state/ church faith of much of history is impossible.

In sum, worldly political strength and effectiveness points in one direction - towards the lost world of a state Christian church - and encourages us to yearn for that world. Spiritual strength points in the opposite direction; but such inner-driven Christian churches seem intrinsically fissile - seem to divide Christians into ever small units, until we inhabit single-building denominations, home churches or operate as unaffiliated Christian individuals. From this there is no possibility of effective political action.

However, maybe that is how things are supposed to be in these End Times? Perhaps Christians are supposed to acknowledge that we have lost The World, and to put aside yearnings to establish another international Christian Empire (which were deeply defective, tyrannical and corrupt and secularized, when such Empires did exist).

We may be compelled to put our faith into a life 'Not of this World' - and to get life satisfaction from non-material and unperceived sources. And such compulsion may be our destiny: part of the divine plan as it unfolds toward the second coming.

Successes, likewise, would not be attained by force - because Christians are so politically weak and dispersed; but by miracles. And those miracles granted to sustain trusting faith of specific persons, to en-courage, to enable hope - but not any more miracles of societal strength and political conquest.

This, at any rate, seems to be the general nature of Christianity in those places where it is currently most vigorous, growing in adherents, and apparently most devout - for example in parts of Africa and China. These Christians are politically weak and persecuted (sometimes savagely so) - but as individuals their faith in Jesus is apparently very strong, and ultimately that is what matters: that is what it is all about.

The specific features of African and Chinese Christianity will not transfer to The West, I don't think; but there is no compelling reason why the general nature and type of these churches may not be replicated in The West, especially as persecution continues to increase.    

For a Mormon-believer the surprising thing would be if Jesus was not married; since marriage is regarded as necessary for the highest divine exaltation. Also, it provides a solid reason why Christ had to be incarnated in order to become our Saviour, despite that he was already divine before incarnation: perhaps Christ needed to be reincarnated in order that he might marry and achieve the final degree of exaltation such that he could Father premortal spirit children?

The main apparent obstacle is that the Bible seems not to mention Jesus getting married - but maybe it does, and quite explicitly. It depends on our understanding of the key section of the key gospel of the whole Bible; namely the events surrounding the raising of Lazarus in John's Gospel - that point of inflexion of the narrative in which events move towards Jesus's crucifixion, implying that Christ's ministry was now complete. What went before (including the delay of thirty years before the start of Jesus's ministry) may be seen as awaiting this moment.

I am going to state why there is good reason to assume that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. I do not think this is any kind of stretch of logic assuming three things: 1. It is plausible Jesus was married. 2. Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene are the same person - Bethany having changed her name after the anointing of Christ. 3. The anointing of Jesus by Mary with spikenard, the wiping of it with her hair, would have been clearly understood by John and his contemporary readers as describing the known ritual of a divine, royal marriage.

The second and third assumptions seem quite reasonable - even though they are not entailed by what we happen to know (from secular histories) of the evidence.

If John's gospel is read in the light of these three assumptions, then the idea of a marriage fits without strain, and explains the subsequent events at the cross (the presence of Mary Magdalene) and the events at the tomb of Jesus after the resurrection.

I append the relevant text. Whether this is found compelling by the skeptic is doubtful; but if we choose to assume that Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment is describing a wedding ceremony, the interpretation enables a naturalness, clarity and simplicity to the narrative - which is otherwise extremely puzzling; given its prominence, detail and placement.

**

John 11: 11 Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister Martha. 2 (It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.) 3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick. 4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby. 5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.

John 12: 18 Now Bethany was nigh unto Jerusalem, about fifteen furlongs off: 19 and many of the Jews came to Martha and Mary, to comfort them concerning their brother... 28 And when [Martha]had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. 29 As soon as she heard that, she arose quickly, and came unto him. 30 Now Jesus was not yet come into the town, but was in that place where Martha met him. 31 The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there. 32 Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. 33 When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled...

John 12: 12 Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2 There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him. 3 Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. 4 Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, 5 Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? 6 This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. 7 Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.

John 19: 25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

John 20: 20 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2 Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. 10 Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. 11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12 and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.

I hesitate to call it unbearable - because it can be can be borne - but it is so harmful, so horrible to feel one's mind slipping into that world view.

It is everywhere and all the time - and requires active avoidance - it is of course in the mass media, and in government speeches, and in the workings of bureaucracies, and in mainstream charities and churches. Sit down in a meeting it is there; somebody giving a speech somewhere and it is there; at awards ceremonies (any kind of award, for anything - indeed awards are among the very worst situations: and modern zombies are extraordinarily fond of giving each other awards!) and one is certain to be confronted by it.

It is the metaphysics of the thing that gets me: we hear somebody in public life give a speech - and it is the world view that the speech comes-from that is most horrifying, rather than the specific elements. It is not so much the individual lies as the root dishonesty which hits home. And this dishonesty is composed of linked elements - such that the lies cannot be tackled one at a time - and the whole basis needs to be attacked; yet of course that is never permitted, is pooh-poohed as fine spun abstraction in contrast with Real Life.

There is also detectable a kind of demonic laughter behind it - somebody, somewhere is cackling with glee at the millions of people being subjected to pernicious, mind-eroding lies from official propaganda and corporate communications and woven into the best and most popular movies and TV shows and novels; soaking it it up, having their deep metaphysics restructured in the direction of hope-less despair enlivened by active destruction of the good (usually the destruction of a greater good by a lesser, as when some 'freedom' or 'rights' are used to rationalise and institutionalize resentment, hatred, and schadenfreude - in other words normal and dominant and universal Left/ Liberal/ Conservative/ Republican/ Libertarian socio-politics).

And how to cope with the fact that so many people seem to seek-out these occasions of horror - and wish to enforce them on others and structure their lives by them; and regard this as the main thing in life, the justification of life, the basis of a proper existence?

And the reluctance to snap-out-of-it; the truly superstitious terror of (even, especially, mentally) stepping out of line... I think of those hordes of middle-aged nice women who are doing the work of demons with a vaguely kindly motivation - pathetically manipulated and praised into assisting their own destruction; those narcissistic young men who live for the mirror - preening their bodies with weights and drugs, self-mutilating, turned-in upon their own self-image; those young women who seek, and get, attention-attention-attention - always and above all things; those older men who want nothing more than to be young, or appear to be young, or to behave asif young.

It is sad to reflect on the worthlessness of the usual, admired human existence in The West, because it is a chosen worthlessness - built-upon the active and impatient rejection of Goodness; a deliberate worthlessness, a worthlessness embraced and made into a philosophy of leaden-featured, dead-eyed, screeching triviality and waste.  

Sadness and anger are the reaction - sadness at the stupidity and self-deception; anger at the lack of resistance to stupidity on the one hand, and on the other hand anger at the sheer viciousness and excitement with which detectable-Goodness is mocked, infiltrated, subverted and macerated.

I have said before, and believe, that up until the past few hundred years (in The West) religious claims can nearly always be taken as true - so long as we pay careful attention to the specifics of those claims.

This is because in the past the great mass of people would not make any religious claims that they did not believe to be true; because for them religion was real, and it was existentially and permanently valuable to tell the truth and hazardous deliberately to lie about the core aspects of religion.

So, no religion except Christianity offers its adherents anything as good as, or better than, an eternal, perfected, bodily resurrection dwelling with the deity after death; and so far as I know, none ever have done in the past 2000 years.


*

We moderns might imagine it would be easy to offer something better than Christianity, or make the same offer on 'easier terms' - but that hasn't happened among - and indeed most religions offer a great deal less, and often enough offer something pretty horrible.

*

This is evidence of their sincerity, and I would say truth - in the sense that they are saying 'If you follow this religion, then this is what will happen to you' (within limits of mortal expression and comprehension - so nothing stated in public discourse can be taken absolutely literally as the whole truth) - and I think this is broadly correct. Do this, and this will happen.

*

Clearly this does not apply to modern times, because many people so profoundly disbelieve in religion that they regard themselves as free to say anything - including whatever lies and misleading comments are expedient in the short term. We live in an era when - for many self-identified Christians - Christianity, for such people, is 'just words'; and they will say and write whatever they regard as most necessary or useful to advance the - usually socio-political - cause which is their real belief.

*

When it comes to the Bible it is interesting to notice that of all the authors and sources in the various books of the Bible - only John in his Gospel claims (not explicitly, but clearly communicated) to have a full understanding of the reality of Christ and his teachings.

And it is also noticeable that John explicitly states (towards the close) that he has not been able to express this full understanding in the Gospel itself.

None of the other Gospel writers claim this (I don't think) - nor does the Apostle Paul. Nor does John himself in the Book of Revelation (which is presented mostly as a vision - indeed a glimpse, hence to be taken symbolically).

I regard this as a confirmation of the primacy of the Gospel of John in the Bible - and support for using this Gospel as a key to understanding the rest of that large and complex book.

If we use the nomenclature of 'self' to express our true, innermost and embryonically-divine nature, and 'persona' to describe the public, interactive aspect - the 'personality' which is a consequence of experience; then we can see that while they need to be distinguished, the two are bound together as a polarity.

We start-out as the self, interacting with nature (the environment, everything that is not-the-self) and participating in it. At this stage life is real and involving because our selves are interacting with it and we know, therefore, moment to moment; that everything 'out-there' is known only by the interaction with the self 'in here'.

But at this stage, 'nature' overwhelms us and drives us, because pretty much all of the self is used in this interaction. We do not feel separate from the environment (or hardly so) but the cost is that we are unfree - because we cannot separate our self, the self is swept-along by the environment.

(The environment is experienced as real, alive, conscious - but the self is unnoticed and has no distinctive role: life is lived, the self does not live life.)

So, the self develops the persona - the public mask - which serves the useful purpose of interacting with the environment using automatic algorithms. The persona is like a protective robot which does the routine work of dealing with nature (including other people) - and the robot leans from experience how to do this.

(In each life, a human moves - to some extent - from the naked self dealing with the environment in the un-self-consciousness of early childhood, absorbed in the mother and family, home and community; to the later childhood and adolescent experience of becoming self-conscious - when the self is experienced as distinct from, potentially set-against, the environment (both social and physical).

The self benefits from the persona (at least initially, potentially) by having the persona do much of the routine work, and thus the self becomes increasingly aware of itself, and aware that it is separate from the environment - because now the persona is interposed. The self has autonomy, time and energies to devote to contemplating its self, its condition and situation, and to considering strategy beyond the moment to moment interactions with nature. Philosophy becomes possible.


As the environment becomes more complex and demanding (for example with increasing complexity of society) so the self diminishes in significance, and the persona increases in importance; until the persona is doing almost everything, using the 'automatic' (robotic) processes it has evolved. The self begins to lose contact with reality, because it no longer deals with nature; the self - that was master - becomes a helpless prisoner of its slave, the persona  - the robot takes-over and imprisons the divine self.

(Initially the self was like an ideal manager who deals with strategy; while the persona was like the front-like workforce who mostly implement standard protocols to deal with the outside world. The manager knows about the outside world via the workforce and has a strong sense of the identity of the whole organization. But later the front-line workers imprison the manager and there is then no strategy at all, nobody has any knowledge of the overall situation of the organization in term of its own goals or the organizations situation in the environment: there is just the workforce, who are unconscious of everything except the immediate business of implementing predetermined protocols.)

So the persona is now doing pretty-much all the work and the self is no longer aware of 'nature' nor is the self directing the persona strategically; but is living in enforced idleness and impotence, having no direct contact with outer reality. Since we as individuals live ultimately in the self as the default to which we revert when not actively engaged with the outer world; insofar as we are aware at all, we experience our state (i.e. the state of the self) as alienation, impotence, meaninglessness, frustration - and indeed begin to doubt first our significance and then our reality.

Thus nihilism; when our self begins to doubt first its own reality (materialism, positivism), then - by a natural inference - doubt the reality of everything else (solipsism).

However, the relationship between self and persona is one of polarity; they cannot really be divided. The self can be overwhelmingly dominant, or the persona can be - as in modern culture; but they are both part of the same phenomenon (there must be an inner core and there must also be a periphery where this inner core interacts with what surrounds it - although the relative size of core and periphery may vary widely) and the reality is that the persona is generated continually by the self, and vice versa.


There are three possible futures:

1. We might stay as we are (and have been for more than two centuries in The West): We have a self that is unaware not just of the outer world but of its own reality - and therefore utterly unaware of the work of the persona: a self that simply takes for granted the persona, and since it lacks contact with environment it is unconscious of that too. So there is just a demoralized and self-despizing isolated self, for whom 'reality' is the product of the persona - and the self is alternately overwhelmed by this reality and doubting of its own reality; or doubts outer-reality and supposes that everything is a product of the self: the state of solipsism.

2. We might go back to the earlier stage of the self interacting directly with the outer world (unprotected by the persona), and unconscious of itself - the persona shrinking back to its earlier minimal state. This could probably only happen if the environment was greatly reduced in complexity (including size). This move to extinguish self-consciousness also amounts to a kind of death wish by which consciousness wills its own extinction.


3. We might go forward to a state of greater consciousness. The Self becomes aware of the persona, aware of the reality of the persona (and therefore of the outer environment with which the persona deals), and aware of the work-methods of the persona - aware that is, of the standard protocols of the persona in dealing with nature.

 This is metaphysics as an active process; it is awareness of our fundamental assumptions. Stage 3 is, indeed, primarily about increased awareness - new awareness of that which we previous took for granted hence were constrained by. It is therefore awareness that makes us ultimately free.

(It is as if we are currently sleepwalking, and have indeed been sleepwalking through all history - either unconsciously dominated by or unknowingly cut-off-from the outer environment. The evolution of consciousness is about increasing that of which we are aware, of bringing it to consciousness: a matter of waking-up!)

The self again becomes real - remains free and autonomous, because it retains the benefits of being protected by the persona. But the persona is no longer taken for granted nor assumed to be giving a complete and unbiased picture of the outer environment - rather, the persona is brought to awareness in its reality and qualities.

We will know that the outer environment is real, and we will also know that we are inextricably and necessarily involved in that outer environment - because everything we know about it comes from interaction. The division between inner and outer is therefore erased, and replaced by awareness of the distinction (but not division) between the self and the persona.


So, with the polarity of self and persona we reach an ultimate reality - beyond which we cannot go, because it makes no sense to try and do so. The polarity of self and persona is the conscious recognition and awareness that the two are different but make up a single process operating through time - indeed, operating eternally.

It is meditation on, contemplation of, the polarity between self and persona that holds the key to moving onto Stage 3.

**
(Beyond an ultimate reality of the polarity of self and persona, lies the ultimate polarity of God and Man - but that is already dealt with by Christian faith; within which the above schema should be embedded.)

If Man's destiny - the one thing needful for our era - is (necessarily within the Christian frame, which is primary) to move towards that higher form of consciousness (Final Participation) variously described or embodied by Coleridge, Goethe, Steiner, Barfield and Arkle - then the question is how? The answer seems to be some kind of Spiritual Science - to adopt Rudolf Steiner's phrase; but not that activity described by Steiner in terms of method, sequence, procedure or protocol.

In writing about 'how to do' spiritual science, Steiner failed to apply his own deep knowledge of and insights into the nature of science as articulated and done by Goethe; and instead lapsed into a positivistic model of science-as-method.

Consequently, Steiner was himself misled by assuming the validity of information gained by applying this method (leading to great masses of nonsense cluttering his writings), and his legacy was subverted by the ineffectiveness of Steiner's own recommendations for 'initiation' such that his followers have utterly failed to reproduce, correct and extend Steiner's original insights. Viewed from nearly a century after Steiner's death; the ability to do Spiritual Science seems as absent from Anthroposophists as from almost everyone else.

The answer, however, can be found in Steiner's own, earliest, work - which is the understanding that true science is not based upon any method, but upon a sustained and loving consideration of phenomena.

Since our task (as aspiring Spiritual Scientists) is - in Barfield's words - Thinking about Thinking, or to study our own 'persona' (i.e. our functional self that interacts with nature) as the phenomenon under consideration - our general attitude is as clear as the specific methods are undefined.

This attitude entails that we study our Thinking Persona as a phenomenon that is eternal in both directions - it has existed eternally, is active now, and extends into an eternal future. Through this span it undergoes developmental evolution, growth, metamorphosis - while retaining its eternal identity. In sum, the phenomenon is that process of being and relating extended across time.

So, Spiritual Science is not some kind of paradoxical attempt to grab and hold-onto our present thinking as it continually sweeps past us into the past - it is the recurrent, lifelong activity of our true and divine selves empathically seeking understanding of our eternally changing 'public'/ interactive personae - by whatever means is most effectual, as established by trial and error, clarification and struggle, sympathy and self-criticism, openness and discernment. 

This is not a thing to be achieved in an instant of enlightenment - although there may well be such moments of grasping - but a long-term (and delightful) project of imagination: the aim is to grasp in imagination our eternal persona. The aim is not to 'understand' ourselves in terms of making a simplified 'model' of our persona - but in imagination to grasp the whole eternal phenomenon.

As I wrote yesterday, this is much like the way that we imaginatively grasp the eternal essence of someone we love - most characteristically a mother or father, brother or sister, spouse, son, daughter or other close and beloved relative. (At best, in our highest and ideal moments) we know and love them not for what they were, are, or will become - but altogether and at once.

(We know them as a 'process' - or rather, as a destiny.)

This is exactly how, in Spiritual Science, we (as our real and deepest selves) need to know our own Thinking Persona; that is the meaning of Thinking about Thinking - and that is what we should strive for.

My general take on reincarnation is broadly that of the Bible which is that reincarnation is possible, it sometimes happens - but it is probably rare or at least unusual.

So far, so mainstream - but I would add that at least some of the most spiritually wise people who have taught reincarnation are or were themselves reincarnates - which is why they personally have a strong insight or revelation as to the truth of this teaching.

On the one hand, I do not feel or believe myself to be reincarnated - but just for fun I will speculate on who I might have been, if I was.

This is based upon those things for which I have a spontaneous affinity.

Language - that would have to be Middle English - the dialect of English spoken and written around 1350... so that is the time I would assume to have been alive.

Place - Somerset, England - especially around the Mendip Hills (the area that Jesus was legendarily supposed to have visited as a boy or young man, before his ministry).

Job - some combination of physician, philosopher and wizard. I find it easy to identify with the solitary (celibate), long bearded, staff-carrying figures of Gandalf, Merlin, and Getafix.

From these 'facts' and also some of my non-affinities/ aversions I can make a sketch of a wandering magical scholar-doctor in the West Country - an isolated figure at odds with, somewhat hostile to, my time - including the mainstream priests and monks (e.g. at Glastonbury).

My liking for the ancient city and university of Oxford probably means I studied there, but I have a feeling that I never graduated - and certainly I was never ordained (although I may have studied for the priesthood for a while). This may have been related to my inability to learn Latin - perhaps I was someone who paraphrased what knowledge I gleaned from manuscripts and conversation into the vernacular.

I imagine I had a fairly hand-to-mouth existence, and lived in some kind of woodland hut; but happy to accept hospitality in return for my services.

What about you?

Liberal Christianity could be defined in theological terms as a type of Christianity which has gone far towards abandoning the historical and literal aspects of Christianity - but its essence is really that Liberal Christians have - over time, through more than a century, and with some time lag - fitted Christianity into the prevailing secular morality.

This means that Liberal Christians are nowadays on the political Left (a term which also includes all  mainstream 'Right wing', conservatives, republicans and libertarians) - in particular in terms of their focus on the key Leftist moral issues of the day: feminism, antiracism, diversity, climate change, third world poverty - and the sexual revolution in general. Liberal Christians embrace these causes; and usually put them at or near the focus of their self-identified Christian life.

And this is precisely why Liberal Christians are, as a strong generalization, useless. By useless, I mean that being a Liberal Christin makes almost no perceptible difference to its adherents - who are assimilated to mainstream modern life in all significant respects; and by useless I mean that Liberal Christian Churches do no good in combating - or even in fighting - the besetting sins of modern times.

Indeed, Liberal Christian churches have no distinctive role at all. They do not address the besetting sin, so they are useless to Christians where it matters most; and they do assimilate to mainstream modern morality, which renders them superfluous to non-Christians. This is a major reason why all Liberal Christian groups in all denominations are shrinking - both in numbers of adherents and in the devoutness of adherents.

The reason is that the besetting sins of modernity - those sins to which we are most prone, and which most harm us - are all Leftist sins: including the anti-spiritual, anti-religious positivistic materialism that has utterly taken over all public discourse (including the public discourses and communications of mainstream Liberal Churches, which nowadays barely mention religions matters).

How do we know the besetting sins? A society's besetting sins are those sins that are actually approved and encouraged in high status, official public discourse. 

We as individuals and as as society are trapped by our besetting sins - many of which are transcendental inversions - Good renamed as evil; the destruction of Good being called good.

Only by first addressing our societies besetting sins can we even begin the process of spiritual progression; and conversely those who are part of the modern moral mainstream (which is Leftist) cannot even begin to do the one thing needful.

Because the one thing needful is to reject the besetting sins of our era - and Liberal Christians do not even want to do that; since they have chosen to regard the besetting sins of modernity as their major priority.  


Note: There are, of course, significant problems, limitations and deficiencies with many non-Liberal Christian churches and denominations - in particular relating to their implicit acceptance of the unspiritual, alienating and mechanistic consciousness of modernity. But Liberal Christians and their churches are of no use in changing Christianity in the necessary direction, nor in assisting genuine spiritual development, because they have in practice allied with the primary forces (the international ruling elites, the media, the bureaucracy, officialdom, corporations...) that are excluding and suppressing the reality of the spiritual.