William Wildblood in a polemical mood, at Albion Awakening:
https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/patriotism.html
Wednesday 5 October 2016
Evidence and logic are always inadequate and nearly-always wrong (and, the importance of 'patient brooding')
Modern man is convinced that evidence and logic are not only the best, but the only valid sources of truth; and that imagination or direct-knowing (accessed by intuition) is subjective, make-believe, open to infinite error; yet evidence and logic are always inadequate.
Evidence is useless - and indeed is not evidence - without a metaphysical system that defines what is evidence and how to interpret it.
The invalidity of logic is simply that it is a model - a grossly simplified version of reality. This is what makes it potentially useful, and also what makes it wrong.
The problems with logic are (at least) two-fold - first that the correctness of logic is unsure. The history of philosophical logic is one in which there are discoveries and refutations - for example, in relatively recent times by Frege and Godel; so that at any particular time and place we cannot be sure that there is not some error in our understanding of logic.
Plus: The potential for error is multiplied (exponentially) by each step in logical reasoning - so complexity of argument is less sure than simplicity.
Secondly - logic is an abstraction which must be applied, must be 'mapped-onto' real life - and this is where things most commonly go wrong.
The problem can best be illustrated by mathematics, which according to some theorists is ultimately identical with logic. To apply mathematics to Life, we need to assign numbers to the entities and process of life - and it is in assigning abstract numbers to real things that things go wrong. Much the same applies to logical categories.
One of the recurrent problems of Christianity (and many other religions) - which goes back a very long way - is the technical, mechanical use of evidence and logic to manufacture specific desired conclusions, to 'settle' questions. And then to rely on these evidence-logic-manufactured 'answers' to the exclusion of the discernment of the heart.
Something similar happens in science. Really creative science is a matter primarily of imagination - but imagination will not come when called, and will not do what it is asked when it is asked - so scientists are tempted to grind-out conclusions with evidence and logic, despite the lack of imaginative validation.
I have done this myself, many times, leading to contrived interpretations and conclusions that never stand-up to sustained reflection; and always regretted my impatience.
What is required is patient brooding, waiting upon the right answer to come in its own time and with its validating, certainty of evaluation of the heart.
I shall have more to say on this theme.
Evidence is useless - and indeed is not evidence - without a metaphysical system that defines what is evidence and how to interpret it.
The invalidity of logic is simply that it is a model - a grossly simplified version of reality. This is what makes it potentially useful, and also what makes it wrong.
The problems with logic are (at least) two-fold - first that the correctness of logic is unsure. The history of philosophical logic is one in which there are discoveries and refutations - for example, in relatively recent times by Frege and Godel; so that at any particular time and place we cannot be sure that there is not some error in our understanding of logic.
Plus: The potential for error is multiplied (exponentially) by each step in logical reasoning - so complexity of argument is less sure than simplicity.
Secondly - logic is an abstraction which must be applied, must be 'mapped-onto' real life - and this is where things most commonly go wrong.
The problem can best be illustrated by mathematics, which according to some theorists is ultimately identical with logic. To apply mathematics to Life, we need to assign numbers to the entities and process of life - and it is in assigning abstract numbers to real things that things go wrong. Much the same applies to logical categories.
One of the recurrent problems of Christianity (and many other religions) - which goes back a very long way - is the technical, mechanical use of evidence and logic to manufacture specific desired conclusions, to 'settle' questions. And then to rely on these evidence-logic-manufactured 'answers' to the exclusion of the discernment of the heart.
Something similar happens in science. Really creative science is a matter primarily of imagination - but imagination will not come when called, and will not do what it is asked when it is asked - so scientists are tempted to grind-out conclusions with evidence and logic, despite the lack of imaginative validation.
I have done this myself, many times, leading to contrived interpretations and conclusions that never stand-up to sustained reflection; and always regretted my impatience.
What is required is patient brooding, waiting upon the right answer to come in its own time and with its validating, certainty of evaluation of the heart.
I shall have more to say on this theme.
Tuesday 4 October 2016
(In a general sense) God (eventually) gives us what we *most* want
Since reality is the product of a God who is not only creator, but also our good and loving Father; as a generalisation we (his children) are eventually given what we most profoundly want.
(Noting that agency is real, each of us is a separate centre of uncaused action; and we really do have control over what we most want - we really can choose.)
We can choose a destiny in eternal families, in a world of loving and creative relationships - including (but not restricted to) a personal relationship with The Father and The Son ...
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/why-become-christian-answer-is-not.html
Or (like the ascetic monastic tradition) if we want to be absorbed into the Godhead (and you understand God the Father as impersonal) - so that the self is extinguished In Love: then we will be granted that.
Or if (like a Buddhist) we regard life as suffering and seek relief from suffering above all; then freedom-from-suffering will be granted by a loving God (after all, as a life-goal, this is not really very difficult to achieve - general anaesthetics manage it).
Or if we want utter freedom from God, and escape from the constraints of human Love; then we will be given that... presumably by being enabled to live inside our own fantasies (not reality, of course - because that would harm others; but in a stable and long-term, self-controlled delusional state): such a person becomes his own God, creates his own 'reality'. This is 'damnation' (see below).
And if a self-gratifying delusional system is what a person most profoundly wants; then presumably that is what God will give - again, it is not, in principle, difficult, but something temporarily approximated by psychotic illnesses such as mania.
(Of course, in a self-controlled delusion, there will always be a tiny residue of awareness that it is a delusion, since self-gratificiation must be imposed by some part of the self which retains control over the fantasy. This is why delusion can never be a 100-percent-convincing simulation of reality. And this is the 'hellishness' of living in a solitary delusion.)
(You can see from the above that there is a certain irreversibility about damnation, because once you are inside a stable delusional system, it is hard to imagine how you ever get out? Something similar applies to the extinction of self. My hunch is that a loving Father would, from time to time, awaken the individual in these states and ask again: How is this working-out; is this what you really want.)
(Noting that agency is real, each of us is a separate centre of uncaused action; and we really do have control over what we most want - we really can choose.)
We can choose a destiny in eternal families, in a world of loving and creative relationships - including (but not restricted to) a personal relationship with The Father and The Son ...
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/why-become-christian-answer-is-not.html
Or (like the ascetic monastic tradition) if we want to be absorbed into the Godhead (and you understand God the Father as impersonal) - so that the self is extinguished In Love: then we will be granted that.
Or if (like a Buddhist) we regard life as suffering and seek relief from suffering above all; then freedom-from-suffering will be granted by a loving God (after all, as a life-goal, this is not really very difficult to achieve - general anaesthetics manage it).
Or if we want utter freedom from God, and escape from the constraints of human Love; then we will be given that... presumably by being enabled to live inside our own fantasies (not reality, of course - because that would harm others; but in a stable and long-term, self-controlled delusional state): such a person becomes his own God, creates his own 'reality'. This is 'damnation' (see below).
And if a self-gratifying delusional system is what a person most profoundly wants; then presumably that is what God will give - again, it is not, in principle, difficult, but something temporarily approximated by psychotic illnesses such as mania.
(Of course, in a self-controlled delusion, there will always be a tiny residue of awareness that it is a delusion, since self-gratificiation must be imposed by some part of the self which retains control over the fantasy. This is why delusion can never be a 100-percent-convincing simulation of reality. And this is the 'hellishness' of living in a solitary delusion.)
(You can see from the above that there is a certain irreversibility about damnation, because once you are inside a stable delusional system, it is hard to imagine how you ever get out? Something similar applies to the extinction of self. My hunch is that a loving Father would, from time to time, awaken the individual in these states and ask again: How is this working-out; is this what you really want.)
Monday 3 October 2016
The Restoration of Monarchy etc.
Over at Albion Awakening, John Fitzgerald blogs on the nature of Monarchy and the possibilities of its restoration, musing on the mythic hopes for a The Sleeping King:
https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-sleeping-king.html
And a correspondent notices that the best time for a spiritual awakening may be coming in about 12 weeks...
https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/christmas-is-coming.html
https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/the-sleeping-king.html
And a correspondent notices that the best time for a spiritual awakening may be coming in about 12 weeks...
https://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/christmas-is-coming.html
Why become a Christian? (The answer is not Hellish fear nor paradisal happiness; but Heavenly family.)
I have never been happy with, nor convinced by, the usual way of trying to persuade people to become Christians - which is either to terrorise them with fear of Hell Or Else; or bribe them with promises of paradisal happiness.
Except for the eternal dimension, to respond to such emotional incentives is hardly a moral act at all - it is not much different from obeying laws to avoid the lash or hanging; or to adhere to social norms in order to be rewarded with money and status.
My fundamental understanding of the choice (and avoiding prejudging the situation with loaded terms) is between 'family and freedom'; between first joining ('salvation') then becoming a fully adult member ('theosis') of the Heavenly Family; or not.
I do not want to present this as a choice between reason and insanity - but to understand why people might (even though mistakenly, by my judgment) rationally choose to reject salvation, and to do so without referring to the hedonic consequences in terms of the balance between pleasure and pain.
(Minimally) the Christian choice is between:
1. Remaining-within the Heavenly family into which we were born as children of God; and
2. Leaving the family to set-up on our own, as individuals - which could be described as 'freedom' (in the sense of 'freedom-from' reciprocity, ties, duties, responsibilities etc.).
**
An analogy might be someone who is born into a loving, stable and expanding extended family-network of relationships: parents, children, spouses and all the degrees of relatives.
Suppose that (at adolescence) he had to make a decision whether to remain as a part of that family - participating fully in the network of loving relationships, but also the constraints of acknowledged family authority, seniority, responsibilities and reciprocities...
Or else he was able to cut himself off from the family, and live free as an individual; doing what he wanted; only having regard to his own preferences, pleasures and desires; believing whatever he most wants to believe - but in a situation where everybody else is also doing the same...
The family situation approximates to heaven, the individual state to hell.
**
By this analogy, we can see that the typical modern life approximates to hell - a situation when many teenagers and young adults reject and leave the family, migrate to the Big City, and participate in work, sex and leisure entirely autonomously; having regard only to their own hedonic state; and living among others doing the same.
This analogy helps us to understand why some people might choose hell - even when they know what heaven offers; because so many of us have been in exactly the situation of ourselves choosing (either briefly, or for long periods - perhaps even a lifetime) the 'freedom' (and costs) of individual autonomy; and rejecting that complex web of inherited loving relationships and responsibilities that constitute the family (even the ideal family).
**
Note: This was also posted at the Junior Ganymede blog, where I added the following:
The above way of understanding the Christian choice was, I think, first made possible by the Restoration of the Gospel message achieved by [the Mormon prophet] Joseph Smith. Until then it was not clear, or not sufficiently clear, what was at stake with salvation; and it was difficult for Christians to go beyond – or deeper than – rather crudely ‘hedonic’ threats and promises. By reframing eternal resurrected Heavenly life in terms of familial relationships (growing in numbers, richness, height, depth and strength – for eternity…), it became possible to understand what Christian Love meant, aside from its merely being equated with happiness; or what sin meant, aside from being merely equated with suffering.
Except for the eternal dimension, to respond to such emotional incentives is hardly a moral act at all - it is not much different from obeying laws to avoid the lash or hanging; or to adhere to social norms in order to be rewarded with money and status.
My fundamental understanding of the choice (and avoiding prejudging the situation with loaded terms) is between 'family and freedom'; between first joining ('salvation') then becoming a fully adult member ('theosis') of the Heavenly Family; or not.
I do not want to present this as a choice between reason and insanity - but to understand why people might (even though mistakenly, by my judgment) rationally choose to reject salvation, and to do so without referring to the hedonic consequences in terms of the balance between pleasure and pain.
(Minimally) the Christian choice is between:
1. Remaining-within the Heavenly family into which we were born as children of God; and
2. Leaving the family to set-up on our own, as individuals - which could be described as 'freedom' (in the sense of 'freedom-from' reciprocity, ties, duties, responsibilities etc.).
**
An analogy might be someone who is born into a loving, stable and expanding extended family-network of relationships: parents, children, spouses and all the degrees of relatives.
Suppose that (at adolescence) he had to make a decision whether to remain as a part of that family - participating fully in the network of loving relationships, but also the constraints of acknowledged family authority, seniority, responsibilities and reciprocities...
Or else he was able to cut himself off from the family, and live free as an individual; doing what he wanted; only having regard to his own preferences, pleasures and desires; believing whatever he most wants to believe - but in a situation where everybody else is also doing the same...
The family situation approximates to heaven, the individual state to hell.
**
By this analogy, we can see that the typical modern life approximates to hell - a situation when many teenagers and young adults reject and leave the family, migrate to the Big City, and participate in work, sex and leisure entirely autonomously; having regard only to their own hedonic state; and living among others doing the same.
This analogy helps us to understand why some people might choose hell - even when they know what heaven offers; because so many of us have been in exactly the situation of ourselves choosing (either briefly, or for long periods - perhaps even a lifetime) the 'freedom' (and costs) of individual autonomy; and rejecting that complex web of inherited loving relationships and responsibilities that constitute the family (even the ideal family).
**
Note: This was also posted at the Junior Ganymede blog, where I added the following:
The above way of understanding the Christian choice was, I think, first made possible by the Restoration of the Gospel message achieved by [the Mormon prophet] Joseph Smith. Until then it was not clear, or not sufficiently clear, what was at stake with salvation; and it was difficult for Christians to go beyond – or deeper than – rather crudely ‘hedonic’ threats and promises. By reframing eternal resurrected Heavenly life in terms of familial relationships (growing in numbers, richness, height, depth and strength – for eternity…), it became possible to understand what Christian Love meant, aside from its merely being equated with happiness; or what sin meant, aside from being merely equated with suffering.
Saturday 1 October 2016
World War three imminent? The coming Western conflict of religion versus nation
I get the feeling that the Global Conspiracy's plan for World War three is being accelerated - almost to the point of absurdity - after the successful destablisation of Iraq, Egypt, Libya and now Syria.
The escalating of rhetoric and demonisation of Russia over Syria is increasingly bizzare, very obviously dishonest, and lacks any common sense motivation.
Luckily for the Conspiracy, we have (as a society) become almost unable to join the dots and see a picture; due to lacking any stable religious centre in ourselves and to the endemic distractions and distortions of the mass media - our minds are passive, constantly filled (to overflowing) with no time or energy to think.
Nonetheless, it could not be said that mass Western public opinion is even remotely persuaded of the wisdom, need for, or benefits from an international nuclear conflict - which the West is currently trying to rationalise. In terms of common sense of national interest, this seems sheer insanity - but that would be an error: there is a plan, there are reasons...
This is purposive evil with the gloves off! It does make sense in terms of a strategic plan to create a general, destructive war - and then (as with the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars) use this as an excuse for imposing totalitarian Global government via Western, secular, Leftist multi-national agencies (League of Nations/ United Nations (WHO), NATO, European Union, the trade agreements and elite clubs &c. ) - and it does not make any other kind of sense.
All this will create a harsh conflict for Western Christians, who will be faced with a choice between national patriotism for an anti-Christian, secular Left regime; and an enemy who is explicitly Christian.
Indeed, the scenario being engineered over the long-term, looks like a contrived war between anti-Religious Inversion of The Good on one side; and the two major monotheisms - who are also (in one country after another, the The West, South Asia, Africa, the Middle east) being situated to fight each other.
(That - plus the hope of demoralization and corruption by Western doles, media, lifestyle and sexual revolution - seems likely to be the reason for systematically and ever-more-obviously (as with the planned, coordinated and funded 'refugee crisis') importing Middle Eastern conflicts into the Western nations.)
It turns out that (yet again!) over the past couple of decades the 'paranoid' conspiracy theorists (honourable mention to David Icke!) have been much more correct than the rational, sensible, educated intellectuals of The West - although the CTs have missed that the most obvious consequence of Middle Eastern conflict in the past couple of decades has been the unremarked, unmourned near-obliteration of what was previously many millions of (minority) Christians in the region. I don't know what exactly has happened to them - but apparently (and I had this from a direct source) they have gone.
**
Note: My above analysis is naturally very conjectural - given my lack of direct knowledge. It is based on the chronic feeling engendered by the public mass media announcements (and recurrent military aggressions) of the dominant elites; in particular the astonishing sight of leading Western politicians and officials (who are the hosts, servants and puppets of the personages of purposive evil) making repeated, relentless, wild and lying accusations against Russia ('Putin') and China; subverting and threatening them in ever cruder fashion (both being countries that are undergoing massive and sustained Christian revivals). As I said; Western Christians are potentially going to find themselves fighting to destroy nascent Christianity on behalf of moral inversion and (increasingly explicitly) in a crusade further to advance the sexual revolution to include the whole world.
On The Positive Side (being hopeful, not succumbing to despair) - Western capability across the board is declining so very fast (due to many factors discussed passim on this blog and my books) that it will be increasigly difficult for the Global Conspiracy to achieve its goals, the more time elapses. This may be one reason for the frantic, reckless urgency of their current behaviour. Delay is our friend, at least in this limited sense; and worth working-for.
The escalating of rhetoric and demonisation of Russia over Syria is increasingly bizzare, very obviously dishonest, and lacks any common sense motivation.
Luckily for the Conspiracy, we have (as a society) become almost unable to join the dots and see a picture; due to lacking any stable religious centre in ourselves and to the endemic distractions and distortions of the mass media - our minds are passive, constantly filled (to overflowing) with no time or energy to think.
Nonetheless, it could not be said that mass Western public opinion is even remotely persuaded of the wisdom, need for, or benefits from an international nuclear conflict - which the West is currently trying to rationalise. In terms of common sense of national interest, this seems sheer insanity - but that would be an error: there is a plan, there are reasons...
This is purposive evil with the gloves off! It does make sense in terms of a strategic plan to create a general, destructive war - and then (as with the 1914-18 and 1939-45 wars) use this as an excuse for imposing totalitarian Global government via Western, secular, Leftist multi-national agencies (League of Nations/ United Nations (WHO), NATO, European Union, the trade agreements and elite clubs &c. ) - and it does not make any other kind of sense.
All this will create a harsh conflict for Western Christians, who will be faced with a choice between national patriotism for an anti-Christian, secular Left regime; and an enemy who is explicitly Christian.
Indeed, the scenario being engineered over the long-term, looks like a contrived war between anti-Religious Inversion of The Good on one side; and the two major monotheisms - who are also (in one country after another, the The West, South Asia, Africa, the Middle east) being situated to fight each other.
(That - plus the hope of demoralization and corruption by Western doles, media, lifestyle and sexual revolution - seems likely to be the reason for systematically and ever-more-obviously (as with the planned, coordinated and funded 'refugee crisis') importing Middle Eastern conflicts into the Western nations.)
It turns out that (yet again!) over the past couple of decades the 'paranoid' conspiracy theorists (honourable mention to David Icke!) have been much more correct than the rational, sensible, educated intellectuals of The West - although the CTs have missed that the most obvious consequence of Middle Eastern conflict in the past couple of decades has been the unremarked, unmourned near-obliteration of what was previously many millions of (minority) Christians in the region. I don't know what exactly has happened to them - but apparently (and I had this from a direct source) they have gone.
**
Note: My above analysis is naturally very conjectural - given my lack of direct knowledge. It is based on the chronic feeling engendered by the public mass media announcements (and recurrent military aggressions) of the dominant elites; in particular the astonishing sight of leading Western politicians and officials (who are the hosts, servants and puppets of the personages of purposive evil) making repeated, relentless, wild and lying accusations against Russia ('Putin') and China; subverting and threatening them in ever cruder fashion (both being countries that are undergoing massive and sustained Christian revivals). As I said; Western Christians are potentially going to find themselves fighting to destroy nascent Christianity on behalf of moral inversion and (increasingly explicitly) in a crusade further to advance the sexual revolution to include the whole world.
On The Positive Side (being hopeful, not succumbing to despair) - Western capability across the board is declining so very fast (due to many factors discussed passim on this blog and my books) that it will be increasigly difficult for the Global Conspiracy to achieve its goals, the more time elapses. This may be one reason for the frantic, reckless urgency of their current behaviour. Delay is our friend, at least in this limited sense; and worth working-for.
Friday 30 September 2016
Clarification - I am not, and do not claim to be, a reactionary (not even 'neo')
Among the admittedly few bloggers who take notice of my comments, I have quite often been accused of not being a real reactionary; as if this was something I claimed to be, and an accusation I might be assumed to dispute...
Although wrong, this is not all that surprising, because several years ago I did go through a period when I did consider myself a reactionary; and this period included writing my book Thought Prison, and it was at this blog that the Orthosphere was devised and named (mainly by Kristor Lawson) - but it is now quite a while (probably about four years) since I was a part of this movement, or had reactionary aspirations - by which I mean the primary hope or intention of returning society to some earlier phase.
On the contrary, I believe we are in the End Times, the Letter Days - that these times are unique and that the 'destiny' (in the sense of the proper, best, intended future) is therefore qualitatively unlike any era of the past.
Part of this attitude is repulsion, part is attraction. Repulsion is that - when I try empathically to identify with any actual society of the past I find it impossible to yearn for it. There are aspects and phases - sometimes short transitional eras - that I do yearn for: some aspects of Neolithic society, of Anglo Saxon Northumbria in the Golden Age, participating in the Divine Liturgy at the Hagia Sophia during the height of the Byzantine Empire, that brief and lovely flowering of the Church of England around the time of Thomas Traherne... little bits and glimpses; but never the whole package.
In particular, I do not want anything on the lines of medieval Europe in the Age of Faith; which seems to be the staple yearning of most reactionaries (either that, or Holy Russia - which I do find preferable; or some kind of puritan commonwealth...). While there is much to admire (I read a lot of Chaucer and his contemporaries, I regard the Gothic Cathedrals as the most beautiful of all buildings) overall I don't much like the idea of Catholic Europe in the way that Chesterton and Belloc painted it. I have tried to make myself, at times; but really I don't. My aversion is solid.
In sum, I cannot regard any previously existing Christian society or type of Christianity as what was wanted or intended - all had good qualities, but all were very deeply and profoundly flawed (not always from their own fault - but usually so). In sum, I am not a traditionalist in any overall sense, nor in any sense which would enable me to point an any actual society and say that was how it was meant to be; that is what Christ intended for us.
I presume a real reactionary must be able to do this, must be able to regard some previous state of affairs as pretty-much ideal, given the constraints (although reactionaries differ greatly among themselves as to what 'that' actually is) but I cannot and do not want to be able to do tit: I am not and do not want to be a reactionary!
Not that I like these times and their trends - they are awful. I am on record of saying on multiple occasions that nowadays in the West seems to be the most evil time and place in human history - the only time when an increasingly systematic inverted morality (good as evil, evil as good) has been officially promoted and enforced in a sustained fashion.
But I am convinced we need to go through these times and out the other side; not back. My diagnosis is that we are stuck in rebellious adolescence - but the adolescence was both necessary and good - the problem was getting stuck for 200 plus years in what was meant to be a short transitional phase leading to a grown up Christianity of a type we never yet have seen.
So I am not a reactionary - I am future orientated. What I would most want is a Christian society, a theocracy - but of a type and nature as yet unseen and unknown (except in glimpses). This would - presumably - delay The End (which seems to be what God wants - he wants this world to last as long as possible, as long as it does good for salvation and theosis) ; but of course in the fullness of time the end will come; and will need to come. But that is God's business, and not even Jesus knew the timing.
But I regard all previous and existing forms of Christian life as flawed and or stunted; i particular most serious churches are currently severely limited, stunted and distorted by continually having to fight the sexual revolution (they have to do this, it is necessary that they do this, I support them doing this - but the fact is that it takes a serious toll on what is possible for Christian churches in our era).
Although wrong, this is not all that surprising, because several years ago I did go through a period when I did consider myself a reactionary; and this period included writing my book Thought Prison, and it was at this blog that the Orthosphere was devised and named (mainly by Kristor Lawson) - but it is now quite a while (probably about four years) since I was a part of this movement, or had reactionary aspirations - by which I mean the primary hope or intention of returning society to some earlier phase.
On the contrary, I believe we are in the End Times, the Letter Days - that these times are unique and that the 'destiny' (in the sense of the proper, best, intended future) is therefore qualitatively unlike any era of the past.
Part of this attitude is repulsion, part is attraction. Repulsion is that - when I try empathically to identify with any actual society of the past I find it impossible to yearn for it. There are aspects and phases - sometimes short transitional eras - that I do yearn for: some aspects of Neolithic society, of Anglo Saxon Northumbria in the Golden Age, participating in the Divine Liturgy at the Hagia Sophia during the height of the Byzantine Empire, that brief and lovely flowering of the Church of England around the time of Thomas Traherne... little bits and glimpses; but never the whole package.
In particular, I do not want anything on the lines of medieval Europe in the Age of Faith; which seems to be the staple yearning of most reactionaries (either that, or Holy Russia - which I do find preferable; or some kind of puritan commonwealth...). While there is much to admire (I read a lot of Chaucer and his contemporaries, I regard the Gothic Cathedrals as the most beautiful of all buildings) overall I don't much like the idea of Catholic Europe in the way that Chesterton and Belloc painted it. I have tried to make myself, at times; but really I don't. My aversion is solid.
In sum, I cannot regard any previously existing Christian society or type of Christianity as what was wanted or intended - all had good qualities, but all were very deeply and profoundly flawed (not always from their own fault - but usually so). In sum, I am not a traditionalist in any overall sense, nor in any sense which would enable me to point an any actual society and say that was how it was meant to be; that is what Christ intended for us.
I presume a real reactionary must be able to do this, must be able to regard some previous state of affairs as pretty-much ideal, given the constraints (although reactionaries differ greatly among themselves as to what 'that' actually is) but I cannot and do not want to be able to do tit: I am not and do not want to be a reactionary!
Not that I like these times and their trends - they are awful. I am on record of saying on multiple occasions that nowadays in the West seems to be the most evil time and place in human history - the only time when an increasingly systematic inverted morality (good as evil, evil as good) has been officially promoted and enforced in a sustained fashion.
But I am convinced we need to go through these times and out the other side; not back. My diagnosis is that we are stuck in rebellious adolescence - but the adolescence was both necessary and good - the problem was getting stuck for 200 plus years in what was meant to be a short transitional phase leading to a grown up Christianity of a type we never yet have seen.
So I am not a reactionary - I am future orientated. What I would most want is a Christian society, a theocracy - but of a type and nature as yet unseen and unknown (except in glimpses). This would - presumably - delay The End (which seems to be what God wants - he wants this world to last as long as possible, as long as it does good for salvation and theosis) ; but of course in the fullness of time the end will come; and will need to come. But that is God's business, and not even Jesus knew the timing.
But I regard all previous and existing forms of Christian life as flawed and or stunted; i particular most serious churches are currently severely limited, stunted and distorted by continually having to fight the sexual revolution (they have to do this, it is necessary that they do this, I support them doing this - but the fact is that it takes a serious toll on what is possible for Christian churches in our era).
How do so many Christians get Christianity so very wrong? It is a matter of basic assumptions
My answer is that they fail to take account of the primary assumptions of God being creator, wholly-good and our wholly-loving Father.
It seems clear to me that many or most Christians - past and present - do not really believe these assumptions - becausse their world picture is grossly incompatible with them. But why do they not (really) believe the primary assumptions?
In the first place such assumptions can only be known by individuals, and by direct-knowledge, intuition, faith. There are no real 'arguments', no 'evidence' to support the idea that God is creator and loving Father - either you know this, or you don't.
Perhaps you don't know it because you have never asked the question - or you may know it but doubt the validity of this kind of knowledge (and need to alter your metaphysical understanding) ... Many billions of religious people who believe in a creator-God have not been able to feel or acknowledge that God is truly a personage - but instead they have an abstract view of God (as like a 'force' or described by abstract properties such as 'omnipotence'). For them God is a creator of total power, but they don't really know anything about God, cannot be sure of his nature and motivations - and therefore cannot infer anything about the world. They might believe in a monstrously horrific human situation - and yet not be sure that this is incompatible with a creator that is good, loving, our Father because the regard goodness, lovingness and Fatherhood as merely abstract metaphors; un-interpretable and not directly applicable to 'real life'.
Others believe in God's complete goodness, but their God not the creator - so their God has very limited power to set-up the world. The world might be set-up as a horrible place of torment, maybe even made or run by evil entities...
However, my point here is that Christians (supposedly) personally, fundamentally believe that God is wholly good, the creator and our Father (that is, intimately concerned with us, his children; and concerned that we grow up and grow up well). All of these.
And yet in actuality many/ most of these Christians have a concept of the human condition as one that ought to be lived in constant and dread-full awareness of the proximity of eternal torment in Hell as the natural, just and default end to mortal life. (Their primary argument is Believe or else. It is the fear of 'or else' which compels belief, not the positive consequences of Christianity. For them; Christ came to save us from a world set-up such that we were destined for eternal torture - that is the 'good' news.)
All this is bound up with notions of The Fall and Original Sin which are abstracted-from/ Imputed to the Bible - yet are far from clear in the Gospels. Why have they become so central, so indisputable, to so many people?
The short answer is that not many people have ever really believed that God is our good, creator Father.
Think about our own earthly Father or Mother - as a child, if we believe they are good, we trust them; and we interpret their actions (observed and imputed) in that light - in the light of knowing that they love us.
We don't let any specific action, or their average of actions, or anything we read, or anything which 'other people' say, have any influence AT ALL on the knowledge of the fact that they love us.
So the mass of Christians do not assume the loving goodness of God, they de facto test it. For example, they test the gooodness of God by reading the Bible, or Church pronouncements. This is equivalent to a child starting each day agnostic as to the love of his parents, and weighing all their actions and statements about them to decide - day by day, moment by moment - whether his parents really do love him - or not.
The fact is, such a child could never reach a conclusion, because it is formally impossible to test whether somebody loves you or does not; whether they are good or not. These are matters of assumption - hence of direct knowledge (or if there is no direct knowledge then they are not known).
This is the craziness of trying to learn about the nature of God by reading the Bible, or reading the Church Fathers, or reading the documents of the church. By doing so we have already, implicitly, mistrusted God, put God on trial; have decided that God is NOT (not really ) our Heavenly Father and creator.
We are relying upon our fallible interpretation of fallible texts for our understanding of the fundamental nature of God and reality! - little wonder that nothing or nonsense are the typical consequences!
Little surprise that - at the end of such - such common - activities, people end up with a view of Christianity that is - at its most basic level - inverted. To focus on Hell instead of Heaven, to impute a Fall and original sin as the primary and focal points of the human condition... this is crazy stuff to anyone who really believes that God the creator set-up this world and that God loves us as a Heavenly Father and is wholly good - because such a one would obviously not have made such a world.
It seems clear to me that many or most Christians - past and present - do not really believe these assumptions - becausse their world picture is grossly incompatible with them. But why do they not (really) believe the primary assumptions?
In the first place such assumptions can only be known by individuals, and by direct-knowledge, intuition, faith. There are no real 'arguments', no 'evidence' to support the idea that God is creator and loving Father - either you know this, or you don't.
Perhaps you don't know it because you have never asked the question - or you may know it but doubt the validity of this kind of knowledge (and need to alter your metaphysical understanding) ... Many billions of religious people who believe in a creator-God have not been able to feel or acknowledge that God is truly a personage - but instead they have an abstract view of God (as like a 'force' or described by abstract properties such as 'omnipotence'). For them God is a creator of total power, but they don't really know anything about God, cannot be sure of his nature and motivations - and therefore cannot infer anything about the world. They might believe in a monstrously horrific human situation - and yet not be sure that this is incompatible with a creator that is good, loving, our Father because the regard goodness, lovingness and Fatherhood as merely abstract metaphors; un-interpretable and not directly applicable to 'real life'.
Others believe in God's complete goodness, but their God not the creator - so their God has very limited power to set-up the world. The world might be set-up as a horrible place of torment, maybe even made or run by evil entities...
However, my point here is that Christians (supposedly) personally, fundamentally believe that God is wholly good, the creator and our Father (that is, intimately concerned with us, his children; and concerned that we grow up and grow up well). All of these.
And yet in actuality many/ most of these Christians have a concept of the human condition as one that ought to be lived in constant and dread-full awareness of the proximity of eternal torment in Hell as the natural, just and default end to mortal life. (Their primary argument is Believe or else. It is the fear of 'or else' which compels belief, not the positive consequences of Christianity. For them; Christ came to save us from a world set-up such that we were destined for eternal torture - that is the 'good' news.)
All this is bound up with notions of The Fall and Original Sin which are abstracted-from/ Imputed to the Bible - yet are far from clear in the Gospels. Why have they become so central, so indisputable, to so many people?
The short answer is that not many people have ever really believed that God is our good, creator Father.
Think about our own earthly Father or Mother - as a child, if we believe they are good, we trust them; and we interpret their actions (observed and imputed) in that light - in the light of knowing that they love us.
We don't let any specific action, or their average of actions, or anything we read, or anything which 'other people' say, have any influence AT ALL on the knowledge of the fact that they love us.
So the mass of Christians do not assume the loving goodness of God, they de facto test it. For example, they test the gooodness of God by reading the Bible, or Church pronouncements. This is equivalent to a child starting each day agnostic as to the love of his parents, and weighing all their actions and statements about them to decide - day by day, moment by moment - whether his parents really do love him - or not.
The fact is, such a child could never reach a conclusion, because it is formally impossible to test whether somebody loves you or does not; whether they are good or not. These are matters of assumption - hence of direct knowledge (or if there is no direct knowledge then they are not known).
This is the craziness of trying to learn about the nature of God by reading the Bible, or reading the Church Fathers, or reading the documents of the church. By doing so we have already, implicitly, mistrusted God, put God on trial; have decided that God is NOT (not really ) our Heavenly Father and creator.
We are relying upon our fallible interpretation of fallible texts for our understanding of the fundamental nature of God and reality! - little wonder that nothing or nonsense are the typical consequences!
Little surprise that - at the end of such - such common - activities, people end up with a view of Christianity that is - at its most basic level - inverted. To focus on Hell instead of Heaven, to impute a Fall and original sin as the primary and focal points of the human condition... this is crazy stuff to anyone who really believes that God the creator set-up this world and that God loves us as a Heavenly Father and is wholly good - because such a one would obviously not have made such a world.
Thursday 29 September 2016
Geoffrey Ashe from 1982 on the pre-requisites of spiritual awakening
At the end of Avalonian Quest, an insightful book on Glastonbury as a phenomenon, Geoffrey Ashe closed with some wise words on what was needed (cica 1982) for there to be a spiritual awakening. 34 years on, it has not yet happened - but his words remain true:
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/geoffrey-ashe-1982-on-spiritual-rebirth.html
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/geoffrey-ashe-1982-on-spiritual-rebirth.html
Poetry in prose - its rarity
Poetry in verse is - by my understanding - rare: very rare.
I have a thing which I recognise as poetry - I can point at the passages where it occurs; and this thing is seldom found. Most 'poets' never once achieve it, and among the true poets, it is only ever to be found occasionaly or intermittently (and of some, I cannot decide).
But poetry in prose can happen too. How may it be defined? Well, most prose - almost all prose - is about things; but poetic prose is the thing itself: poetic prose is that which it describes.
Many writers strive for, or contrive to, impersonate poetic prose, by rhetorical tricks. And they may 'fool' us for a while (and the prose writers may also fool themselves that they have actually achieved poetry); but genuinely poetic prose is far beyond most prose writers, and repeated reading will reveal this, if it is allowed to.
The main repository of poetic prose in the English Language is in the Authorised ('King James') Version of the Bible. And there is also some in Shakespeare's plays. From the next generation, the 'Centuries' of Thomas Traherne stand-out. In the modern era, if we compare CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien; it seems clear to me that Lewis never writes poetic prose, but Tolkien sometimes does.
Interestingly. I first became aware of the distinction between poetry and prose in the prose writings of Roberts Graves (such as The White Goddess) - yet Graves's own prose is always prosaic (superb in quality, but always 'about' - never 'it' - and indeed the same applies to his verse: it never rises to real poetry (although Grave's himself hotly asserted otherwise).
My understanding is that real poetry, whether found in verse or in prose, is rare, intermittent, uncontrollable, and only somewhat related to overall literary quality (some genuine poetry is found among minor poets like WH Davies or Walter de la Mare, while absent from major writers like WH Auden or TS Eliot).
We live on prose, it is our bread-and-butter - our staple diet - but poetry is there if we are open to it. What poetry 'does' is hard to say; mostly it points to the sheer possibility of itself - of language also being what language is about. A world where people communicated in poetry rather than prose would certainly be a better place!
I have a thing which I recognise as poetry - I can point at the passages where it occurs; and this thing is seldom found. Most 'poets' never once achieve it, and among the true poets, it is only ever to be found occasionaly or intermittently (and of some, I cannot decide).
But poetry in prose can happen too. How may it be defined? Well, most prose - almost all prose - is about things; but poetic prose is the thing itself: poetic prose is that which it describes.
Many writers strive for, or contrive to, impersonate poetic prose, by rhetorical tricks. And they may 'fool' us for a while (and the prose writers may also fool themselves that they have actually achieved poetry); but genuinely poetic prose is far beyond most prose writers, and repeated reading will reveal this, if it is allowed to.
The main repository of poetic prose in the English Language is in the Authorised ('King James') Version of the Bible. And there is also some in Shakespeare's plays. From the next generation, the 'Centuries' of Thomas Traherne stand-out. In the modern era, if we compare CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien; it seems clear to me that Lewis never writes poetic prose, but Tolkien sometimes does.
Interestingly. I first became aware of the distinction between poetry and prose in the prose writings of Roberts Graves (such as The White Goddess) - yet Graves's own prose is always prosaic (superb in quality, but always 'about' - never 'it' - and indeed the same applies to his verse: it never rises to real poetry (although Grave's himself hotly asserted otherwise).
My understanding is that real poetry, whether found in verse or in prose, is rare, intermittent, uncontrollable, and only somewhat related to overall literary quality (some genuine poetry is found among minor poets like WH Davies or Walter de la Mare, while absent from major writers like WH Auden or TS Eliot).
We live on prose, it is our bread-and-butter - our staple diet - but poetry is there if we are open to it. What poetry 'does' is hard to say; mostly it points to the sheer possibility of itself - of language also being what language is about. A world where people communicated in poetry rather than prose would certainly be a better place!
Wednesday 28 September 2016
How to attain solid knowledge by Imagination (and where Rudolf Steiner 'went wrong')
This follows on from the post below...
1. The most solid knowledge - that is, least prone to error, external influence and wishful thinking - is that which comes to us spontaneously, unsought.
In other words, this is the imaginative knowledge that comes-into the mind without mediation either by five senses' information or of reasoning. It 'appears' - it is 'just there' - and we know it by intuition (of course, summarising and explaining imagination are extra, and fallible, processes).
2. By purposive concentration on a theme or question.
This knowledge is more prone to error, wishful thinking etc. What tends to guard against this is when we allow ourselves to 'brood' patiently on matters, without a deadline or sense of urgency.
This patient brooding allows the proper question to become clear, as well as the answer - because asking too-narrow a question is to introduce un-noticed assumptions that may not be correct.
Patient brooding is the proper way to fill gaps in our knowledge, or deal with personally vital questions.
3. Imagination becomes error prone when it is used against a short timeline to answer questions that we are not personally engaged by - when used to answer 'idle curiosity' or externally-originating commissions.
*
Note: This is where I think Rudolf Steiner went wrong in his later career as a clairvoyant: that is he used his imaginative ability urgently (against a deadline, such as a projected lecture course) to seek detailed answers to questions that were not of primary concern to him; and also questions which came from other people.
Biographers agree that much or most of Steiner's later work (including the vastly detailed historical material, training methods for doing Spiritual Science, work on medicine, agriculture, education etc.) was done in response to an external agenda.
In addition, the vast number of lectures he gave, from 1904 more than 150 increasing to more than 400 lectures per year - I believe led him to 'force' answers using a standardised psychological 'technique'.
Steiner came to believe that answers to anything and everything were to be had, instantly, and for the asking... These were then 'automatically' systematised - quite naturally for him, using his vast intelligence and memory, into the trained 'German Professorial' form in which they were recorded.
This is my explanation as to why the great bulk of Steiner's output is wrong, irrelevant and off-putting - but nonetheless (and especially the early material, but intermittently through his life) he also produced basic and essential insights and knowledge.
1. The most solid knowledge - that is, least prone to error, external influence and wishful thinking - is that which comes to us spontaneously, unsought.
In other words, this is the imaginative knowledge that comes-into the mind without mediation either by five senses' information or of reasoning. It 'appears' - it is 'just there' - and we know it by intuition (of course, summarising and explaining imagination are extra, and fallible, processes).
2. By purposive concentration on a theme or question.
This knowledge is more prone to error, wishful thinking etc. What tends to guard against this is when we allow ourselves to 'brood' patiently on matters, without a deadline or sense of urgency.
This patient brooding allows the proper question to become clear, as well as the answer - because asking too-narrow a question is to introduce un-noticed assumptions that may not be correct.
Patient brooding is the proper way to fill gaps in our knowledge, or deal with personally vital questions.
3. Imagination becomes error prone when it is used against a short timeline to answer questions that we are not personally engaged by - when used to answer 'idle curiosity' or externally-originating commissions.
*
Note: This is where I think Rudolf Steiner went wrong in his later career as a clairvoyant: that is he used his imaginative ability urgently (against a deadline, such as a projected lecture course) to seek detailed answers to questions that were not of primary concern to him; and also questions which came from other people.
Biographers agree that much or most of Steiner's later work (including the vastly detailed historical material, training methods for doing Spiritual Science, work on medicine, agriculture, education etc.) was done in response to an external agenda.
In addition, the vast number of lectures he gave, from 1904 more than 150 increasing to more than 400 lectures per year - I believe led him to 'force' answers using a standardised psychological 'technique'.
Steiner came to believe that answers to anything and everything were to be had, instantly, and for the asking... These were then 'automatically' systematised - quite naturally for him, using his vast intelligence and memory, into the trained 'German Professorial' form in which they were recorded.
This is my explanation as to why the great bulk of Steiner's output is wrong, irrelevant and off-putting - but nonetheless (and especially the early material, but intermittently through his life) he also produced basic and essential insights and knowledge.
The hierarchy of knowledge - a coherent metaphysics
From highest to lowest...
Imagination --- attained by Intuition
Rationality --- attained by Reasoning, including Logic ( 'Philosophy')
Empirical Evidence ('facts') --- attained by Observation, including Experiment ('Science')
(Note: an older division, before the development of Science as a separate domain, combined Rational and Empirical as Natural Philosophy
The above hierarchy is, I think, the only coherent set of metaphysical assumptions for arranging these types of knowledge - in the sense that 'facts' depend on reasoning, and reasoning is validated by intuition.
What, then, validates 'Imagination/ Intuition'? The further assumption of divine revelation - which needs to be both internal and external - we need to have something divine within in order to respond to divine revelations from without.
Once these assumptions, and this scheme, is in place - then everything necessary seems to follow.
Any other arrangement of the elements seems to be self-refuting.
Implications...
1. Imaginative knowledge can be tested by reasoning and observation (tested to some extent, although almost-never conclusively so) - but imaginative knowledge is primary.
2. Facts need to be tested by their coherence with other facts - i.e. by reasoning - and also and ultimately by imagination (although this imaginative test cannot be forced; the answer may come slowly or not at all; and at any cross-sectional point in time, intuition is likewise variable in validity and reliability).
3. Reasoning needs to be tested by imagination - since we are very prone to errors in reasoning, and correct reasoning is not fully and un-distortedly known in any explicit and reliably-transmissible fashion.
Imagination --- attained by Intuition
Rationality --- attained by Reasoning, including Logic ( 'Philosophy')
Empirical Evidence ('facts') --- attained by Observation, including Experiment ('Science')
(Note: an older division, before the development of Science as a separate domain, combined Rational and Empirical as Natural Philosophy
The above hierarchy is, I think, the only coherent set of metaphysical assumptions for arranging these types of knowledge - in the sense that 'facts' depend on reasoning, and reasoning is validated by intuition.
What, then, validates 'Imagination/ Intuition'? The further assumption of divine revelation - which needs to be both internal and external - we need to have something divine within in order to respond to divine revelations from without.
Once these assumptions, and this scheme, is in place - then everything necessary seems to follow.
Any other arrangement of the elements seems to be self-refuting.
Implications...
1. Imaginative knowledge can be tested by reasoning and observation (tested to some extent, although almost-never conclusively so) - but imaginative knowledge is primary.
2. Facts need to be tested by their coherence with other facts - i.e. by reasoning - and also and ultimately by imagination (although this imaginative test cannot be forced; the answer may come slowly or not at all; and at any cross-sectional point in time, intuition is likewise variable in validity and reliability).
3. Reasoning needs to be tested by imagination - since we are very prone to errors in reasoning, and correct reasoning is not fully and un-distortedly known in any explicit and reliably-transmissible fashion.
Monday 26 September 2016
Serious talking: What could and should people actually *do* in a Christian revival?
In an essay entitled 'God in the Dock', CS Lewis comments that the British working class men he lectured during the 1939-45 war were impervious to historical arguments: they did not really believe history, did not believe it was known or relevant.
On top of this, he mentions that discussions of the meaning of words created suspicion rather than clarity; and instant turn-off. I would add to this that for most people multi-step logical argument creates a mixture of boredom and hostility; people find it excruciatingly dull and suppose that they are being hoodwinked with verbal trickery.
I suspect that these negatives relating to history and logic are even more strongly and widely the case now, after 50 years of political correctness; so that arguments in favour of religion that depend on the validity and relevance of history are likely to be ineffective.
By contrast, looking at the relatively high continued effectiveness of evangelism from Pentecostal and Charismatic churches; I suspect that the approach to modern evangelism needs to be through personal revelation, direct spiritual experience, and the seeking of guidance by meditation (inner) and prayer (outer) communications.
On top of this: If there is a spiritual revival afoot or imminent, I think it will be fuelled by a revulsion against The System; and will therefore include a revulsion against both history and logic (which have long since been captured and perverted by The Establishment).
So. The path to revival...
1. The true path is intuition (but not instinct)
2. Seeking and gaining Revelations from the divine (but not 'what you will' and not 'gut instinct')
3. Anti-materialistic (not economic, not socialism in any form, not focused on worldly action)
4. Concrete - not abstract (again, because abstraction - like logic - has been captured by The System)
Then what should people actually do? (in a world where the old instructions are seldom possible - they cannot be asked to join a church, because probably that church will stop them being a Christian; they cannot be told to 'read the Bible', because that experience will probably also be counterproductive.
(But I might venture to suggest that someone read with care the Gospel of John in the King James Version, and then pray and meditate as to whether it is true. It might work. But there is really no 'method' either to prayer or meditation - so even such a simple instruction might be counterproductive.)
If Christian revival is to be more than something happening in people's head; people need to talk.
That is how I think a modern revival might be perceived - in terms of talk. People talking about spiritual and religious matters. Talking among husband and wife and in families, among friends; teachers, doctors, therapists being asked questions serious questions, and then being judged on the seriousness of their answers (and impatiently rejected if they are unable to respond, instantly and directly, with commensurate seriousness).
People in private, at work, in cafes or bars - having (or trying to have) serious talks about ultimate matters; impatiently shrugging-off the artificial and manipulative concerns of the mass media and the daily psychodramas and sexual strategising, the mind-numbing restrictions of political correctness.
And a reck-less-ness about all this - because it will need to overcome the inculcated fear to keep people on track and in line; supplemented by engineered crises, contrived states of 'emergency', persecutions disguised as philanthropy...
But all such matters thrust-aside with a single gesture as worldly system stuff...
Spiritual awakening therefore first evident in the form of Serious Talk.... Who will be able to respond, and feed the spiritual hunger?
On top of this, he mentions that discussions of the meaning of words created suspicion rather than clarity; and instant turn-off. I would add to this that for most people multi-step logical argument creates a mixture of boredom and hostility; people find it excruciatingly dull and suppose that they are being hoodwinked with verbal trickery.
I suspect that these negatives relating to history and logic are even more strongly and widely the case now, after 50 years of political correctness; so that arguments in favour of religion that depend on the validity and relevance of history are likely to be ineffective.
By contrast, looking at the relatively high continued effectiveness of evangelism from Pentecostal and Charismatic churches; I suspect that the approach to modern evangelism needs to be through personal revelation, direct spiritual experience, and the seeking of guidance by meditation (inner) and prayer (outer) communications.
On top of this: If there is a spiritual revival afoot or imminent, I think it will be fuelled by a revulsion against The System; and will therefore include a revulsion against both history and logic (which have long since been captured and perverted by The Establishment).
So. The path to revival...
1. The true path is intuition (but not instinct)
2. Seeking and gaining Revelations from the divine (but not 'what you will' and not 'gut instinct')
3. Anti-materialistic (not economic, not socialism in any form, not focused on worldly action)
4. Concrete - not abstract (again, because abstraction - like logic - has been captured by The System)
Then what should people actually do? (in a world where the old instructions are seldom possible - they cannot be asked to join a church, because probably that church will stop them being a Christian; they cannot be told to 'read the Bible', because that experience will probably also be counterproductive.
(But I might venture to suggest that someone read with care the Gospel of John in the King James Version, and then pray and meditate as to whether it is true. It might work. But there is really no 'method' either to prayer or meditation - so even such a simple instruction might be counterproductive.)
If Christian revival is to be more than something happening in people's head; people need to talk.
That is how I think a modern revival might be perceived - in terms of talk. People talking about spiritual and religious matters. Talking among husband and wife and in families, among friends; teachers, doctors, therapists being asked questions serious questions, and then being judged on the seriousness of their answers (and impatiently rejected if they are unable to respond, instantly and directly, with commensurate seriousness).
People in private, at work, in cafes or bars - having (or trying to have) serious talks about ultimate matters; impatiently shrugging-off the artificial and manipulative concerns of the mass media and the daily psychodramas and sexual strategising, the mind-numbing restrictions of political correctness.
And a reck-less-ness about all this - because it will need to overcome the inculcated fear to keep people on track and in line; supplemented by engineered crises, contrived states of 'emergency', persecutions disguised as philanthropy...
But all such matters thrust-aside with a single gesture as worldly system stuff...
Spiritual awakening therefore first evident in the form of Serious Talk.... Who will be able to respond, and feed the spiritual hunger?
Sunday 25 September 2016
What is the biggest coming threat to modern salvation? Probably implanted 'smart' technology
I think that computers and the internet may represent the biggest threat to humanity ever - the transhumanist nightmare - because people want them and they are addictive: a lethal combination (far more dangerous to the soul than coercion).
As the technology gets 'smart' so the actual people get dumber - and in a subtly deceptive way: they can (to an extent) fool other people by passing-off the external data as their own knowledge - as with cut-and-paste or memorise-and-parrot.
And modern evaluations are seldom able to tell the difference between personal knowledge and re-presented stuff (only human judgement in sustained interaction can do that - and such evaluations are deemed subjective hence personally-biased).
If we consider the cognitive psychological division of input-processing-output - then the input is already almost monopolised by the mass media; the current step is for more and more processing/ thinking to be done online (in 'the cloud') with humans as small scale participants.
When both input and processing are determined - then output - i.e. human behaviour - is also determined.
In other words if/ when the Establishment are controlling what goes into thinking, and if thinking is being done by programmable computers - then everything that happens will be controlled.
At present most people voluntarily carry smartphones and use them nearly all the time - the next step is to make them wearable - but this may be leapfrogged and the technology will become implanted into the body - for extra convenience, and because people are addicted to distraction and want never to be separated from their internet and social media access.
And of course once the technology is implanted it cannot be avoided - so by controlling input and processing then humans will (so the theory of cognitive psychology goes) be controlled by whoever, or whatever, controls the computers.
Will modern man mind about this; or will he continue to labour and queue and pay to be the first and get the latest and most controlling tech? Will there be campaigns, demonstrations and riots protesting that some people are excluded from the implant revolution? Quite likely - if things ever get that far.
On the positive side, cognitive psychology is just a model, certainly not the whole truth - so there are many factors left out of the input-processing-output description that are important; and control of input and processing will not (when it comes to it) fully control human behaviour.
Nonetheless the degree of success of the mass media control of input is striking; and when processing is added onto it - it is likely that humans will indeed become highly, if not completely, controllable.
Against this actually being achieved is the decline in human intelligence and creativity combined with the exclusion of intelligence and creativity from modern institutions; then there is the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the ever more pervasive bureaucracy (now constituting one massive, multi-system, linked bureaucracy) - which is further contaminated by endemic dishonesty.
And then there is the interdependence and fragility of the global system; self-paralysed increasingly by self-loathing and the covert wish for self-destruction and civilisational suicide.
Technological capability is already declining - and this may go so far and so fast as to prevent the transhumanist nightmare.
Like so many catastrophes - it is a race against time - and the only thing that stops it may need to be failure, rather than good sense or good morals.
More on this at: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/beyond-smartphone-and-wearable-computer.html
As the technology gets 'smart' so the actual people get dumber - and in a subtly deceptive way: they can (to an extent) fool other people by passing-off the external data as their own knowledge - as with cut-and-paste or memorise-and-parrot.
And modern evaluations are seldom able to tell the difference between personal knowledge and re-presented stuff (only human judgement in sustained interaction can do that - and such evaluations are deemed subjective hence personally-biased).
If we consider the cognitive psychological division of input-processing-output - then the input is already almost monopolised by the mass media; the current step is for more and more processing/ thinking to be done online (in 'the cloud') with humans as small scale participants.
When both input and processing are determined - then output - i.e. human behaviour - is also determined.
In other words if/ when the Establishment are controlling what goes into thinking, and if thinking is being done by programmable computers - then everything that happens will be controlled.
At present most people voluntarily carry smartphones and use them nearly all the time - the next step is to make them wearable - but this may be leapfrogged and the technology will become implanted into the body - for extra convenience, and because people are addicted to distraction and want never to be separated from their internet and social media access.
And of course once the technology is implanted it cannot be avoided - so by controlling input and processing then humans will (so the theory of cognitive psychology goes) be controlled by whoever, or whatever, controls the computers.
Will modern man mind about this; or will he continue to labour and queue and pay to be the first and get the latest and most controlling tech? Will there be campaigns, demonstrations and riots protesting that some people are excluded from the implant revolution? Quite likely - if things ever get that far.
On the positive side, cognitive psychology is just a model, certainly not the whole truth - so there are many factors left out of the input-processing-output description that are important; and control of input and processing will not (when it comes to it) fully control human behaviour.
Nonetheless the degree of success of the mass media control of input is striking; and when processing is added onto it - it is likely that humans will indeed become highly, if not completely, controllable.
Against this actually being achieved is the decline in human intelligence and creativity combined with the exclusion of intelligence and creativity from modern institutions; then there is the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the ever more pervasive bureaucracy (now constituting one massive, multi-system, linked bureaucracy) - which is further contaminated by endemic dishonesty.
And then there is the interdependence and fragility of the global system; self-paralysed increasingly by self-loathing and the covert wish for self-destruction and civilisational suicide.
Technological capability is already declining - and this may go so far and so fast as to prevent the transhumanist nightmare.
Like so many catastrophes - it is a race against time - and the only thing that stops it may need to be failure, rather than good sense or good morals.
More on this at: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/beyond-smartphone-and-wearable-computer.html
Why did the Hippie/ New Age romantic revolution turn bad?
I put forward my understanding of this business in course of a review of a Hippie era novel set in Glastonbury, written by the Arthurian expert Geoffrey Ashe.
I identify three reasons (in reverse order): Sex & Drugs & Anti-Christianity:
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/review-of-geoffrey-ashe-novel-finger.html
I identify three reasons (in reverse order): Sex & Drugs & Anti-Christianity:
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/review-of-geoffrey-ashe-novel-finger.html
Saturday 24 September 2016
When we look-within, what are we looking for? (Not 'the unconscious'...)
I live very near to an ancient and Holy well - which can be seen as an image of that we seek within.
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/the-unconscious-personal-or-collective.html
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/the-unconscious-personal-or-collective.html
Friday 23 September 2016
Three months on... we have Brexit-In-Name-Only
It is hardly a surprise, but we are now three months after the Brexit vote and nothing has happened - zilch, zip, nada...
Lots has been said - but since all mainstream politicians are liars, then these words mean nothing - zilch, zip, nada...
We have an Anti-Brexit Prime Minister leading a group of Anti-Brexit or sell-out ministers, and all the parliamentary parties and all the British elite are Anti-Brexit... so it is unremarkable that they are working towards some change that is no change; some way that Britain can 'leave' the EU without actually leaving.
('Leaving' the EU but so that the elite corruption and bribes are intact, and so that the British subsidy of and subordination to the EU remains; and Britain remains securely on its partly driven/ partly suicidal downward-path to spiritual and cultural oblivion.)
So, what next?
If I am correct; then now that the large majority of English realise that the Establishment has no intention of giving them what they voted for; some-thing is about to happen which will, in some way, reveal (to those with eyes to see) that the British Establishment is systematically lying to the British people and has malign intentions towards them.
What this 'thing' will be, I do not know - no doubt it will come from some unexpected and unguarded direction - because we are now dealing with divine intervention, lining-things-up behind the scenes.
But (if I am correct) it will happen and we will know it when it has happened.
And what then? Well, that depends on how people choose after they know...
People will know, they will choose, and they will then have to live-with the consequences of their choice.
Lots has been said - but since all mainstream politicians are liars, then these words mean nothing - zilch, zip, nada...
We have an Anti-Brexit Prime Minister leading a group of Anti-Brexit or sell-out ministers, and all the parliamentary parties and all the British elite are Anti-Brexit... so it is unremarkable that they are working towards some change that is no change; some way that Britain can 'leave' the EU without actually leaving.
('Leaving' the EU but so that the elite corruption and bribes are intact, and so that the British subsidy of and subordination to the EU remains; and Britain remains securely on its partly driven/ partly suicidal downward-path to spiritual and cultural oblivion.)
So, what next?
If I am correct; then now that the large majority of English realise that the Establishment has no intention of giving them what they voted for; some-thing is about to happen which will, in some way, reveal (to those with eyes to see) that the British Establishment is systematically lying to the British people and has malign intentions towards them.
What this 'thing' will be, I do not know - no doubt it will come from some unexpected and unguarded direction - because we are now dealing with divine intervention, lining-things-up behind the scenes.
But (if I am correct) it will happen and we will know it when it has happened.
And what then? Well, that depends on how people choose after they know...
People will know, they will choose, and they will then have to live-with the consequences of their choice.
How to set-about achieving a higher consciousness
by William Arkle
I am convinced by the overall validity of Rudolf Steiner's 1918 prophecy concerning the spiritual future of Western Man:
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=steiner+prophecy
The bottom line of this insight is that within a Christian context the number one priority for modern Western Man is to expand and enhance consciousness such that we become aware of the spiritual world beyond the 'five senses', including the divinity of our fellow Men.
This enhanced consciousness aimed-at is not a matter of the kind of hallucinatory, dream or trance-state we associate with shamans and other mystics of former eras - but is to be achieved in and by lucid, alert and purposive thinking.
Overall, not so much about seeing new (and previously unseen) things, so much as seeing old things anew (see Arkle's painting above).
In other words, it is a particular kind of thinking which is to provide us with valid knowledge - but not just abstractly 'knowing about' stuff; but actual experience of the reality of knowledge.
(Why? My understanding is currently that there is a kind of thinking which is primary, spontaneous, and does not depend upon perception or any other kind of 'input' - and this comes form God-within-us, that which makes is children of God: and that is the reason why it is intrinsically valid thinking.)
The 64,000 dollar question is how do we do this? How do we raise our thinking to this level, and keep it there? Where do we even start on this task?
Having been reading Colin Wilson's Beyond the Occult recently, I think one general answer may be that we should start with any of the spiritual, paranormal or enhanced types of consciousness that we personally spontaneously experience. These go by many names, but could include peak experiences, synchronicity, self-remembering, clairvoyance, fore-sight, the sense of being transported to another time or place (what Wilson termed Faculty X)...
Or (especially) those 'magical' (or holiday) times of several or many minutes when we seem to be living inside a narrative or story or tableau, and in a state of awareness of connections and a providential unfolding...
In a nutshell, we can start with those moments or times when the ordinary and the everyday are felt to be meaningful, purposive and we are engaged by them.When this happens, we are inside the kind of thinking we are aiming-at, the kind of thinking we most need - these phenomena are (often) a sign that this is it.
That is the kind of thing we start-with, and what we need to remember, take seriously, and endeavour to build-upon.
Nothing we might do is more important - the task deserves our best efforts.
Thursday 22 September 2016
Tolkien's visionary Legendarium - an essay by Charles Ridoux
An essay by Charles Ridoux, translated from the French by John Fitzgerald:
https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/charles-ridoux-essay-on-tolkiens.html
https://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/charles-ridoux-essay-on-tolkiens.html
Why all the Alt-Right excitement? Because people are sniffing the chance of a lucrative sell-out; and selling-out is what the secular Right intellectuals *always* do (given the chance)...
The (online) excitement among the Alt-Right since they were mentioned in a speech by Hillary Clinton - and since it becomes clear that Donald Trump is (de facto) running unopposed - is palpable.
And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/political-correctness-beats.html
No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!
Of course, if one is hoping for some positive change in direction of The West, and the chance to step-off the down-escalator to mass damnation and cultural suicide... well, then all this is utterly irrelevant; since Trump and the Alt-Right are merely a part of the Leftist Media Establishment Fake Reality (they are on the same side, controlled by the same forces, as the Clinton/ Democrat Left and SJWs) - all of which we must see-through and repent before any positive change is possible.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/what-do-i-think-about-alt-right-it-is.html
**
NOTE: It might be wondered why I am attacking the sincerity, strength and value of the Secular/ Alt-Right yet again (and I have been doing so since 2010 when this blog started, including in Thought Prison which was written from this blog - http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
The reason is that I believe (on mostly intuitive, rather than evidential, grounds) we are now in a time when there is a chance of genuine, existential change in The West - which would require us to dump secularism and take a path which is initially spiritual and eventually religious. Triumphalism over yet another pseudo-Right movement - based on the identical utilitarian and this-worldly bottom line as the mainstream Left - makes such a genuine change less likely. This is why I wish to point out the motivational feebleness and covertly self-seeking nature of the Alt-Right (etc) movement.
And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/political-correctness-beats.html
No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!
Of course, if one is hoping for some positive change in direction of The West, and the chance to step-off the down-escalator to mass damnation and cultural suicide... well, then all this is utterly irrelevant; since Trump and the Alt-Right are merely a part of the Leftist Media Establishment Fake Reality (they are on the same side, controlled by the same forces, as the Clinton/ Democrat Left and SJWs) - all of which we must see-through and repent before any positive change is possible.
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/what-do-i-think-about-alt-right-it-is.html
**
NOTE: It might be wondered why I am attacking the sincerity, strength and value of the Secular/ Alt-Right yet again (and I have been doing so since 2010 when this blog started, including in Thought Prison which was written from this blog - http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk
The reason is that I believe (on mostly intuitive, rather than evidential, grounds) we are now in a time when there is a chance of genuine, existential change in The West - which would require us to dump secularism and take a path which is initially spiritual and eventually religious. Triumphalism over yet another pseudo-Right movement - based on the identical utilitarian and this-worldly bottom line as the mainstream Left - makes such a genuine change less likely. This is why I wish to point out the motivational feebleness and covertly self-seeking nature of the Alt-Right (etc) movement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)