Bruce Charlton's Notions

I have previously noticed that this current era is strange, even within context of the past couple of centuries of the post-industrial revolution era, in terms of matters that used to be regarded as having great significance being now regarded as utterly trivial or non-existant.

Perhaps the most extreme devaluation is the role of those who have died: the so-called dead.

We now experience a total denial that the dead have any active role in everyday life - indeed, the idea strikes modern people as ridiculous, since death is understood to be the opposite of life. For modern people, where there is death, there is no life; and life excludes the presence of death.


Yet it seems that Men of the past dwelt in a world composed of both the living and the - far more numerous - dead. 

In the most remote past, the dead were apparently perceived as present 'here and now' - the dead were often seen, heard, felt... There was a social relationship between the living and the dead much the same as between the living. The presence and activity of the dead was therefore a matter of everyday sensory experience.

Indeed the dead were not dead as we understand the world. We understand biological death to be the extinction of life and Being; but in the past death was regarded as a transition, the crossing of a threshold - a change of form.

Therefore the dead remained alive but in a different form. When a person had died biologically, he continued to to play an active part in life - and this was potentially a permanent situation.

The living and the dead had a two-way interaction; they could help or harm each other - they were mutually engaged in the making of the world. The presence of the dead was sensed, was known - the dead provided all manner of guidance and warning; the living might do things to please and assist the dead.


If this were the only factor at work; the dead would tend become more numerous, more important, with each generation. But working in the opposite direction, was the dead undergoing a transformation back into life; by some kind of reincarnation. Another aspect was the potential for transformation between men and other types of Being - such as animals - the same 'soul' being able to remain a spirit, or to take-on different forms.  


Needless to say, modern Man typically does not experience the world this way, and believes that ancient men did Not really perceive the dead around them, and did Not really interact with them - they were in error and only imagined this situation.

What was really happening (we believe) was that the living were doing everything... and the dead were absent - because they we obliterated by having died.

However, such an interpretation is based on two things: the absence of sensory awareness of the dead combined with the theoretical assumption that death is the end.

Of these, the assumption is stronger than experience; because the assumption that death is the end is so powerful, so overwhelming; that when a modern person does experience the presence of the dead - by seeing, hearing, touching, interacting with a dead person - then this (and any possible) perceptual experience is always explained-away.

Any perceptual or experiential account of contact with the dead is always (for typical modern Men) interpreted as being the result of some kind of pathology (an hallucination due to mental illness or sickness) - or a self-deception, wishful thinking or imagined fears.

At the extreme, the claimed experience is stated never to have happened: to be a fraud.

In other worlds, our assumptions about the finality of death are stronger than any possible experience that the dead remain present and active.  


This open-up the possibility that the dead are still actually 'with us', as much as ever they were; and that the difference between ancient and modern Men is at the level of perception: they perceived the dead, we do not.

The possibility is confirmed when modern men are (rarely) conscious of the dead - despite not perceiving them... when we simply know that the dead are present. For example I may know that I am are interacting with someone dead, and may know what he wants, and how he is responding to me.

In other words, the awareness and relationship with the dead may be something that happens in Consciousness - and without Perception. The theoretical basis, the metaphysical assumptions, that explain the primacy of Consciousness, the primacy of Thinking, for modern Man; are something I have often written about.

But here I simply want to say that modern Man may, on this basis, return to the situation of ancient Man - to a situation in which ordinary everyday life is lived in awareness of the presence of the dead, and indeed in a social interaction with the dead. 


Furthermore, this may lead to an awareness that the dead are concerned-with this mortal life on earth, and we are concerned with the continuing life of the dead: both sides have roles to play, jobs to do, destiny to pursue.

Further-more, we may come to agree that this is a matter of primary importance; and that the typical modern failure to acknowledge the presence of the dead is seriously damaging to us and to them - in a manner closely analogous to an act of denial of the existence of other living people, despite that they are all around us: as if, solipsistically, we regarded all 'other people' around us as merely hallucinations and delusions.


The typical modern, and absolute, metaphysically-rooted refusal to acknowledge the presence and importance of the (so-called) dead is - at root - a denial of Love; having the inevitable consequence of spiritual isolation and existential loneliness.

When modern man assumes that death is annihilation, and holds to that assumption in despite of all experience - this acts like a wish: the wish to be cut-off from reality.

And this deep yearning for the nothingness of total isolation fulfils itself in a horrible fashion, as we see all around us.    

Seeking contact with the (so-called) dead has a bad reputation among most Christians; due to the high levels of charlatanism, exploitation, inconsistency of information; and scope for self-gratification and/ or self-deception.

There is also the concern that, when real, attempting to contact the dead invites demonic influence. 

Protestants (in particular - for theological reasons) sometimes prohibit any dealings-with, or -about, the dead - even in prayer.  

But almost all societies in history have regarded the dead as part of mortal life; and the modern idea that the death brings annihilation of spirit as well as body - that the dead are dead and gone - is surely a vast and despair-inducing error or sin, due to our metaphysical materialism.

The proper question, therefore, is how - not if - we should have dealings with 'the dead' - at least, those who are not actually dead; because it may well be that those who die while desiring annihilation may, de facto (if not in terms of disappearance) transform into a state without consciousness. 

The first thing I remind myself about, is that 'he dead' are not a homogenous group; but that each departed spirit is unique in his or her nature; and also may continue in a variety of possible states. 

To my mind; a major problem with the kind of attempted contact with the dead associated with 'spiritualism', the use of trance mediums, and ritual-magical procedures; is that there may be contact with demons, or 'ghost'-type spirits who seem to exist in an earth-bound region between moral life and death.  

If such spirits are indeed contacted, there is no reason to assume they will be honest, and many reasons to suppose they are likely to be at least as flawed and mixed in motivations as we mortal incarnate Men - and quite likely even worse 9which is why they are what they are). They are likely to have selfish agendas at least; and may spitefully delight in lying, wreaking misery and harm. 

But, contact with resurrected Men in Heaven is another matter altogether; since these will be wholly Good, living and behaving in harmony with divine creation - and contact will be made only when it is likely to benefit us in our intent for salvation, and search for theosis.

(By theosis I mean our attempts to develop towards higher divinity while still mortals; by learning spiritually from the experiences of this mortal life; such that this learning will be manifested after resurrection.)

Indeed; it is a consequence of resurrection that even those who were very flawed or sinful in their mortal lives, but who attained salvation, become wholly Good in their resurrected Heavenly lives. So that we get the best from contact with the dead - such that the dead are always better than they were when alive.

This may be an element in the idealization of some of the dead. When someone has died and been resurrected they really have become ideal version of themselves! 

So that - if a person was known before death, as well as after resurrection; there will be experienced a qualitative improvement in their nature after death. Likewise, someone contacted after his resurrection who has been known only (for example) as a writer, or via biographies, will be experienced as wholly-Good - even when it is clear that before death, he may have been mostly-bad. 

 

I regard contact with resurrected Men - who I regard as a type of angel - is not only a Good Thing, but probably an important and perhaps necessary thing for some people; perhaps especially among the old. 

For some people, in some situations, contact with one or more of the resurrected dead may even be their primary spiritual task. 

For a start, it can be a vital source of spiritual guidance. 

While the guidance of the Holy Ghost is primary; since the Holy Ghost is one personage, this guidance is of general kind, and concerned mainly with the key essential aspects of our mortal existence. 

By contrast; the guidance of those dead who are resurrected Men is very various, as various as those who are resurrected; and may therefore be tailored to our exact nature and circumstances - even down to the minutiae of our lives. 

The main problem is likely to be our own motivations for seeking contact. It is difficult, in the short-term, to eliminate distortions due to self-deception, or demanding self-gratifying or self-affirming contacts or 'guidance'. 

But many of these adverse motivations can be eliminated by maintaining secrecy about our contacts - by not disclosing to others with whom we have contact, and keeping secret their information and guidance. 

Such privacy (which I think ought to be observed for miracles, as well) makes it difficult to 'use' spiritual contacts for selfish purposes - eg. to claim special status or authority because our our contacts.

 

Another aspect of motivation is concerned with the matter of whose contact is sought. The resurrected dead are typically engaged in the lives of some mortal people, and may be seeking contact with us; and such interest may be conveyed by various means (according to the person whose attention is sought) - by directly communicated thoughts or interest, by synchronicities and so forth.  

Or we may be guided towards particular people among the resurrected dead, by God and via his ongoing work of creation; in accordance with the nature of our spiritual needs. 

We need to be open to the idea f contact with the so-called dead, willing to recognize and act-upon guidance, and willing to participate in the processes of contact - while maintaining intuitive discernment to check that that spirits are what and who they claim to be, and that our conclusions from contact are objective - and not merely expedient.

This interview with Christopher Bamford is a good introduction to some of the core (and, I believe, most interesting and important) ideas of Rudolf Steiner. Bamford is not a fluent speaker, but he is (I think) pleasant and engaging; once he gets past the first six minutes (which are mostly answering questions about about the sales of Steiner Press publications).   

After a very good concise definition of the essence of Steiner's ideas; Bamford moves-onto a discussion of the 'so-called dead' as Steiner calls people who have biologically died.

I have found these ideas of Steiner's to be helpful in triggering my own thoughts on the subject - not by my agreeing with what Steiner believes happens after death (I regard him as mostly-wrong about this!) - but mainly by Steiner taking the matter seriously, and in the right spirit. 

The right spirit is to recognize that there is one world that includes both the living and the 'so-called dead' - and also, I would add, pre-mortal spirits who have never been incarnated. 

I think of this, however, in an individual way. I don't believe I am directly concerned with all the dead, or even most of them - but with certain specific people. 

One point Bamford mentions is that the relation between living and SC-dead is potentially (and ideally) two-way and reciprocal. 

Some of the dead remain concerned with, and interested by, the doings of some of the living. 

And also we personally each have an interest in some of the dead - including some duties to them, because there are ways that some particular dead person needs you or me specifically - he or she can benefit from our actions.

Having established the general principles; how might I get to know who exactly needs my attention? 

As usual in personal relationships, this does not work by formula. But I think sometimes I have had a strong and sustained inclination/ motivation to (in some way) pay attention to some particular person - a prime example is my fascination with William Arkle (which I have described here). 

So - I believe that we can know this much without much difficulty. But if you were to ask me to tell-you exactly what we ought to be doing for a specific dead person; then I think we get into the usual difficulty with human relationships that any summary is grossly inadequate and can be dangerously misleading. 

For example, if someone tried to discover what exactly was his duty to a mother, brother, wife or best friend... Then how could this (even in principle) be answered satisfactorily in any kind of explicit, comprehensive fashion? It could not. 

And if you (unwisely) did summarize your duty in some sentence or list of bullet-points - then this reductionism of the personal would be far more likely to mislead and misdirect than to help. 

The correct and simple answer to 'what is my duty?'; is something like loving attention. 

Our duty to the specific-dead is loving attention... and whatever flows from that. 

Edited from The Forming of Destiny by Rudolf Steiner GA 157a - Lecture Berlin, 7th December, 1915

Man is confronted with the outer occurrences of nature, the external beings, and events of nature. These run their course and expire. But beyond all this man seeks something which really has nothing to do with the immediate necessities of the world. 

If nature and history were merely concerned with the satisfaction of human needs, life would become barren and desolate. Man creates here in physical existence something above and beyond the course of nature and necessity. We can think of the whole realm of Art as something that man creates here which is higher reality than the ordinary reality pertaining to nature and history. 

Just think what the world would miss if there were no Art, if Art did not add that which she can produce from her own sources to that which is self-existing. Art creates something which, one may say, need not of necessity exist. If she were not there, all the necessities of nature might still go on. One may suppose that even if no single copy of nature had been made and no artistic representation, life would still pursue its course, from the beginning to the end of the earth. 

We have in Art something extending beyond life. Think of all that Art has created in the world, and also of the progress of man through the world; there you have in a sense two parallel progressive processes: the necessities of nature and history, and the stream of Art which is inserted in them.

Just as Art, in a sense, brings as by enchantment a spiritual world into the world of physical reality, so another world conjures up into the world of those who have gone through the gates of death: these memories which fill our souls here. 

As far as the dead are concerned the world here might run its course without any memories living in the souls here, memories born of love and all our human relationships. But then the world of the dead would be to them as a world without Art would be to us — a world in which we could find nothing transcending ordinary reality. 

Here in the physical world a man must bring forth artistic creation out of his own soul, must contribute something out of his own being; similarly, to those 'dead' who are now in the spiritual world. What we in this world gain from Art, must be brought to the dead from their our world. If we had no memories of the dead, the life of the dead would be like our life would be without any Art.

Why has a value always been laid by human communities on the celebration of All Souls Day, and days for the dead? Because in the depths of man's subconsciousness there lives what may be called a dim knowledge of what takes place in the world by keeping alive the memory of the dead. 

When the receptive soul of the seer celebrates All Souls Day, or a Sunday devoted to the dead, or some similar day when many people come together full of the memories of their dead, he sees the dead participate in the ceremony. For the dead, such events are the same as when the living truly hear a great symphony. 

Comment: I find several points here very telling.

First the comparison between Art for the living; and the living-memories of the dead, for the dead. In other words, this is not a matter of survival, but of meaningfulness - but the comparison shows how important meaningfulness can be (because a life utterly without Art of any kind would be, for most Men, a very poor quality existence indeed.)

So this is a matter of what we, the living, can and should be doing for the dead.

The second point is to note the importance of some kind of day of the dead for traditional, agrarian societies - so that at least once a year the dead will be remembered by ritual celebrations and observances.

(This annual and communial event can, itself, be regarded as already a considerable retreat from the kind of taken-for-granted inclusion of the the dead in ordinary everyday living by every single family and clan, which is reported for most tribal societies.)

We moderns have left behind this kind of practice, but have not replaced it - except in a partial and ad hoc fashion (such as the observance of anniversaries of the death of prematurely dead - children and young people). The usual secular modern preference is for a short and intense grief; then (as soon as possible) to 'move-on' form the death of a loved-one - in particular it is regarded as pathetic if someone continues too long, or pays too much everyday attention, to the dead.

And if the bereaved indicate by word or action that they consider the deceased to be - in any active fashion - alive and involved in this world... well that is generally regarded as a form of mental illness. So, apparently, human culture has swung around something like 180 degrees - from the beloved dead being a part of life, to a situation when this behaviour would be regarded as stupid or sick. 

My conclusion is that Steiner was onto something important here, a very significant aspect of life that all modern people, including Christians, ought to reconsider - since even Christians (especially Protestants) have developed attitudes hostile to the idea of any kind of real and important communication, any genuine link between the living and the dead.

An attitude of ignoring the dead (or regarding the matter of relations between the dead and alive as not-significant) is certainly unnatural to humans - and that fact should give us pause; since what is unnatural (and so by a wide consensus of historical societies) is likely to be objectively wrong in some way.

My conclusion is that we are probably meant to consider the beloved dead as a part of our lives, to remember them, and to in some way remain in contact with them. That 'in some way' should be the focus of our investigative efforts.

Rudolf Steiner had a remarkable prophetic era in his life, around 1917-19. At that time he seemed to have all kinds of insights about what was coming; including what was coming if Man did not re-connect with the spiritual aspects of the world (if - in a nutshell - Man did not take the path of Romantic Christianity). 

I have been reading some lectures given in Zurich, dating from November 1917 (significantly, Steiner seems to have made several of his best and most prophectic lectures to the Zurich Anthroposophical Society). 

These lectures are focused around the question of relationships with The (so-called) Dead; including how these relations can be good, or evil. 

But as a framework; Steiner makes a very important point (text edited by me):  

There are still many people who say: “Oh, well, in all good time we shall discover what transpires after death; why trouble about it now? Let us attend to the requirements of life and when we reach yonder world we shall soon discover what it is.” 

Well and good, but if it is true that in yonder world a man becomes what he has pictured himself to be, then something else is also true. 

Take the idea that is not at all uncommon nowadays. Somebody dies, leaving relatives behind him. Although thought may not be entirely lacking in these people, they may be materialistically minded, and then, quite inevitably, they will think either that the dead man is decaying in the grave or that what still exists of him is preserved in the urn. 

If materialism were to triumph, the conviction would still further increase that all that remains of the Dead person is disintegrating in the urn or in the grave. This thought is, however, a real power; it is an untruth. 

When those left behind think that the Dead person no longer lives, is no longer there, this is a false thought — but it is real and actual in the souls of those who form it. 

The Dead person is aware of this thought-reality, is aware of its significance for him. And it is a matter of fundamental importance whether those left behind cherish in their souls the thought of the Dead person living on in the spiritual world; or whether they succumb to the woeful idea that the Dead, well, he is dead, he lies there decaying in the grave. 

Far from being a matter of no importance, there is a very great and essential difference. (...)

This is illustrative of the way in which modern Man prejudges issues that he has not considered; makes up his mind about the fundamental, metaphysical nature of reality; meanwhile pretending that he is merely being 'common sensical', focused on 'what matters' and 'keeping an open mind'. However, common sense here-and-now is often the opposite of history, 'what matters' depends entirely upon what actually-is true and important, and keeping an open mind on one subject entails closing the mind on other possibilities.

Modern materialism conceals itself behind such assumptions as taking the attitude that we can (and should) defer dealing-with questions such as whether life, or human identity, continues after death; or whether The Dead have some kind of an ongoing relationship with the Living. These assumptions are reinforced by statements that 'we cannot know' such matters - or cannot know them with certainty, and therefore need-not/ should-not consider them. 

Yet at the same time, the same people behave in every way as if they were certain that (for example) 'racism' (undefined) is a great evil everywhere in the world today; or that 'science' (undefined) has proven that global warming is real, caused by CO2 and can be stopped or reversed by carbon taxes and 'green technology'. Or certain that the birdemic virus has already been a major cause of death, and is a major threat to global health. 

In truth, people refuse even to think-about death and The Dead - because they have already decided, they are certain, that the dead are annihilated and therefore there can be no genuine relationship between dead and living people.

Yet people are wrong about certainties; and then their wrongness has consequences. If The Dead continue to live and seek a relationship with the living, and if this relationship (like other personal relationships) may be good or evil in nature; then this denial Will have adverse consequences - especially if evil persons abuse their knowledge of the continuing relations with The Dead for their own evil purposes. 

 

This abuse is the subject of other parts of Steiner's November 1917 Zurich lectures: the ways in which 'dark brotherhoods' manipulate the situation of The Dead to cause harm to human health and the development of consciousness. 

As always with Steiner, I find that reading these lectures requires considerable sifting, discrimination and modification; but I feel a solid ring of truth about the subject matter and his basic points. And I think it is very likely that something of the sort is actively happening among the Global Establishment at the highest levels - where (to all appearances, by action not words) belief in the supernatural is normal and regarded as vital (albeit deniable and denied); and where initiations, symbols and rituals of many types have such an important role (albeit shrugged-off as mere vestiges, artistic subversions, parody and 'fun').  

One point Steiner makes is that when 'initiates' of these dark brotherhoods die, they may consent to become what are essentially 'evil ghosts' (as a mode of live extension - a very popular goal among the 'elites', as 'transhumanism') --- dead, still tied to the earth, and able to cooperate with the dark brotherhoods, and to continue their work of opposition to God and creation. 

Indeed, Steiner regards the hope or promise of life-extension to be the materialist evil-inversion of the Christian goal of life eternal; with the promise that it can be obtained by technological-magical procedures. 

 

I am personally Not certain about all this, but I'm pretty confident that there is 'something in it'. And much more so now than a century ago, when Steiner was speaking - hence the prophetic insight on display here. And like all prophets (as contrasted with mere predictors) the future is seen as contested territory, subject to human free agency; and something we all help to decide, and contribute to making.

The Dead (or the so-called Dead, as Rudolf Steiner usefully called them) are alive and sometimes need to work with us, and we with them. 

As with everything in life, this working-with is an individual business; so The Dead are not a generic category but composed of specific deceased individuals with whom specific living individuals ought-to be working in a collegial (or even familial) way. 

As of 2022 and for most people; this 'working-with' typically happens by Direct Knowing, happening in our Primary Thinking - and not through any kind of mediumship; although it is likely that The Dead with whom we are working will, like our living families and friends, make appearances in our dreams. 

I have found it fascinating to discover that there are particular persons among The Dead with whom I have this kind of 'working relationship' - and not necessarily those I most wanted or expected to work-with. 

It is striking the extent to which modern leftist culture works to thwart this natural and necessary work. It is more than thirty years since I heard some feminists discussing how they 'couldn't' read anything written by Dead authors - because of their attitudes to sex and sexuality. 

And now the whole process has become mainstream and official, with the 'cancelling' - banning and deletion - of any and all Dead people whose views conflict with today's totalitarian imperatives - especially with respect to the pseudo-sin of 'racism'. 

Indeed, this has sometimes spread from destruction of The Dead to include anything that happened to anybody last year/ week/ or even yesterday...

It has become clear that the current Global Establishment are urgently concerned that all living Men should be cut-off from any possibility of relationship with The Dead - by inculcating and rewarding generic attitudes of superiority, moral hostility, and resentment. 

Yet it is possible that someone (or more than one) among The Dead is seeking to work with you, now; as a matter of mutual benefit. 

And if you don't even consider this possibility, you will certainly deprive both living and dead of something that may be of great importance.  

This is aimed mainly at the elderly among my readership. 

Who are the old? It is approximately the last quarter of life when a Man is 'old'. Since the natural human lifespan is about 70 years, then the last quarter commences at about age 53. 

So, if you are that age or older you just-are Old, and ought to acknowledge the fact because there is work to be done!

What kind of work? If he is wise - a Man's thoughts will (and should) begin to turn towards death. Death is the work. 

The nature of 'work' in old age is provided-for by our natural disposition, and by the waning of other concerns and capacities. Modern people see old age in terms of loss of abilities (and appearance). 

This is because biological ageing does not generate any genuine 'compensatory' increase in other abilities - so the phenomenon seems wholly negative. 

So much for biology... It is  when we include the spiritual as our focus that we can see 'compensatory phenomena'. 

What old age brings is not capabilities but possibilities. There is a spontaneous tendency for a change in patterns of activity, sleep, and interests that are suited to the tasks of old age. 

These tasks are, broadly, a coming to terms with mortal (finite) human life, and the implications for the nature and meaning of death. 

This is why older people are spontaneously interested by the past - especially their own past, and by those who are dead. These natural changes provide clues to the spiritual task of the old. 

I get the impression that very few of today's old people are engaged in these proper and necessary tasks; essentially because they have decided that death will be an end for them and everyone, an annihilation. 

(Probably this is why modern old people are (in general) such a vain, foolish, and selfish bunch of parasites - as revealed so graphically by their terrified, hysterical and resentful response to the birdemic fraud.)

But if we instead assume that death is a transformation, we can begin to work on the nature and implications of that transformation...

The implications for our-selves, for those who have already died (the 'so-called dead', as Rudolf Steiner called them), and for those who love who will (at some point) face that transformation. 

That is (or should be) the primary work of the elderly. And, unlike many activities, it is something that the old are naturally equipped and inclined to do.  

Of course, this work cannot and should not be the whole of life; any more than going-to-school, playing, finding-a-spouse, raising kids, or making-a-living, or any other single activity can be the whole of life in earlier years. 

But it is something we ought to be doing in old age - and if we aren't doing it, then we will almost certainly experience old age as a net-negative phenomenon, a life-phase of overall-loss - and respond with an escalatingly desperate and delusional clinging to the activities and appearances of youth. 

The late Christopher Bamford was the editor-in-chief of Rudolf Steiner Books; and provided many excellent introductions to variously-themed collections of Steiner's lectures. 

Here Banford was interviewed for a documentary about Steiner; and from about 6-28 minutes, he provides a really excellent insight into what is best, deepest and most important about the work of Rudolf Steiner. It is a distillation of many years of reading, thinking and editorial work. 

For anyone with even the slightest interest in Steiner this deserves careful and focused listening. 

TW - Although Bamford was born in Wales, and lived his adult life in the USA, the trace of accent is Hungarian, deriving from childhood and youth.  

In case the video goes down, I will provide my own paraphrased summary of what Bamford says, derived from notes I took while watching. 

Where I amplify upon Bamford, I will put my own notions into [squared brackets]. 

***

The essence of Steiner's message is that we are already, here and now, living in a spiritual world. This is true despite our habits of reductionist-positivistic thinking - which actually materializes the world; nonetheless we live in a spiritual world: here and now. 

Everything is consciousness. 

...And all consciousness is of a Being which is conscious. 

We inhabit a world of Beings in relationships. 

So, reality consists of relationships in consciousness. 

These relationships continue after that transformation which is death - indeed our relationships with the so-called-dead are highly significant. 

The so-called-dead are not just active on this life on earth, that is their major focus and interest; they desire (sometimes need) to be involved in our lives. 

This reality was reflected in religions where ancestors were with the living, and participating in everyday life. 

After 'death' we will be with those we had relationships with during this life. And in this life we should continue to stay connected with those we love who have 'died'. 

Such two-way relationships continually strive to operate via the spiritual (not material) world; [which is why it is vital to acknowledge that this is primarily a spiritual world].  

Steiner's teaching is about The Earth - which is the centre of concern for the universe. This concern includes the Earth, and Men, through the long history of its developmental-evolution. 

The purpose of the Earth and Men - what this world is essentially for - is the creation of relationships. And this is vital because only on Earth and among Men can Beings learn to love. 

Steiner's most fundamental teaching is that the most important thing in reality is the cultivation of Love; and the development of consciousness of Love.

Therefore, consciousness [i.e. personal awareness, by a Being, of that which is] has a positive transformative capability.

Also both love and freedom are needed and inseparable - you cannot have one without the other. 

[Steiner's concept of freedom is related to the development of consciousness; we become free by first becoming conscious and then by choosing; and this applies to love.] 

The most important activity of the universe takes place on earth, and the rest of reality participates in the development of Love between beings on Earth. 

[This is creation. Our life on Earth is spiritual; this spiritual life is about love; and this love is creation. Creation is made-of love; and the aim of evolution is to develop this love and consciousness of love.]

Earth is the centre of reality. And Love is what makes creation possible - what makes creation happen.  

The gods [i.e. divine Beings, and God the primary creator] are focused on the Earth. Humanity is therefore "the religion of the gods". 

The incarnation of Jesus Christ turned the universe inside-out. God was beyond and 'there', but God is now right here. 

Jesus's instruction to love one another meant that Men could become his friends. Indeed, we must love among our 'brothers and sisters' or else we cannot love God. 

[Love among Men is not sufficient, but it is essential. The first commandment to love God, and the second commandment to love fellow Men are no longer, since Christ, possible to separate. Both are necessary for each other.]

Steiner realized the centrality of Christ by a personal and initiatory experience of consciousness; which reality became a central and guiding light of his whole life and teaching.  

Christianity began as a religion but became more than a religion. The reality of Christ is now global, and in all Men and all religions, everywhere.   

I have often said that the big sins of these days seem to be resentment, fear and despair. 

But, although fear is the most obvious, it is not usually regarded as a sin. Similarly - resentment is frequently felt as a moral principle (social justice, entitlement), rather than an evil. And despair is mistaken for realism. So, the dominant sins of our times are too seldom noticed as such - even by Christians. 

At any rate; given the fact of accelerating spiritual war, and the global socio-political victory of the side of evil, nowadays a lot of people; undesirable negative emotions are seldom far away - and these need to be combatted.

I say combatted; because these emotions are themselves an element in the spiritual war - and as such we must but Not treat them therapeutically (to be analgesed or tranquillized); but instead need to learn from them and defeat them. 

(Therapy is this-worldly - treating sin with 'healing' is a demonic snare.) 

We need courage not therapy; we need hope not analgesia.

And since The World of Men is now substantially in the hands of the Enemy - we need to take-our-stand outside of this corrupted world. 

Therefore, when assailed by resentment, fear or despair; I find that sometimes I am able to induce myself to a wider and longer perspective; providing a bigger context for present dysphoria, and angst about the future.  

This by reminding myself of certain truths. Sometimes one works, sometimes another - depending upon my current state and mood. Here are some of them, in no particular order, which might perhaps be of value as a kind of 'checklist' when the mind is clouded or oppressed:

1. Reality is ultimately created by God - and continually being-created by God; and I participate in this creation (as a sub-creator) insofar as the world is understandable to me. I look around and remind myself of this. 

2. The world is Not dead, mechanical or random; the world is alive and conscious: this is a world of beings. Every 'thing' is actually a being, or part of a being. (These beings are (by choice) either on the side of God, or against God.) 

3. The so-called dead are actually alive, in some way and in some place; and those of 'the dead' in Heaven remain active in this mortal life: we may help them, and they may help us. This is important work for us. 

4. Sleep is a vital part of our mortal lives. Sleep is an experience from which it is intended we shall learn. It requires our attention. 

5. We need to become consciously aware of much that is currently unconscious - indeed this is a major task of these times. A false non-reality is being imposed on us when we are passive, unconscious and refuse the responsibility of choosing; therefore, we need to be conscious of reality (of truth) and actively-choosing the 'real reality'.  

6. God is the eternal (loving and creating) dyad of heavenly Father and Mother - yet I tend to neglect my Heavenly Mother. She surely deserves my attention, and I would surely be the better for giving it. 

7. There is no fixed limit to my knowledge except my capacity of knowing - and that may be developed by spiritual experience and learning; by right alignment and right choices. Anything I need to know - for salvation or theosis - I can know. If I don't yet know it, then I have not yet asked properly. 

8. My current spiritual task is related to my current situation - including bad things about Now; because my current situation is continually-being fitted to my spiritual needs by God. 

9. Whatever is my current motivation or obsession has some meaning, some lesson to impart (maybe positive, maybe negative) - so is worth attending to. 

10. Think about Heaven and the everlasting resurrected life to come for all those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. This choice is free and cannot be compelled - or excluded. Heaven is awaiting after the end of mortal life - if we want it, if we are prepared to acknowledge our sins and allow ourselves to be cleansed of all that contradicts eternal love. So - assuming we intend to accept the gift of it: think about Heaven.   

It is easy, and common (in a world historical context), to believe that the world is non-random, and that therefore there is some meaning to unusual phenomena such as dreams and synchronicities. But there is a big step from knowing that there is a meaning, to working out the specific meaning of a specific dream, or a specific 'coincidence'.

Typically, in seeking a meaning, people turn to the content of a dream or event; and try to understand its symbolism. The symbolism is often interpreted using some kind of standard 'key' along the lines of Freud's 'censor' whereby towers might mean phalluses and domes mean breasts; or Jung's mythic, archetypal personifications.

Such 'symbolic content' interpretative approaches are unconvincing and have, over many decades, proved disappointing. In practice, they seem to find only what they bring; they seem to force an abstract and generic template onto very specific and personal situations.

But in 1914, in a lecture about how we might set up contact with the so-called dead; Rudolf Steiner suggested a very different idea; which strikes me as being on the right lines*. We should understand dreams by the feelings they evoke; we should understand a specific dream by trying to understand the very specific effect that dream - as a whole - has had upon our feelings.

In other words, the meaning of a dream lies behind the dream as a whole, not its detailed content; as known by the distinctive and complex nature of the exact feeling experienced.

For example, if we meet a known person in a dream, and he does some thing; then the real meaning is not in that person or what he does; but in the person and events that are suggested by our feelings about that dream. So a dream person may appear to be one person but really be another - feel like another. That person might do something in the dream - but we find that our responsive feelings don't match with the events; and then we should infer that the significance of what the person did was actually given by how the events made us feel.

Similarly when it comes to a meaningful 'coincidence'; the synchronicity of thinking about a person (for the first time in years) and then receiving a letter from him, or reading about a strange and improbable event that soon after is mirrored in our experience; such meanings should be sought in the feelings that these events have upon us. It is the consequent feeling that yields the meaning, not the surface content, nor the apparent personnel, nor its symbolism.

Since I absorbed this teaching; I have brooded it on it sufficiently that it came-into a particular dream a few nights ago - in which it seemed to unlock a very convincing meaning relating to communication with a deceased loved one - a communication understood in terms of my feelings, and an interpretation relating to general type of influence. It felt like a first-step.

In other words, recalling Steiner's ideas 'made' the ongoing dream semi-lucid, such that I became conscious that I was dreaming, and then able to apply various tests to what was happening - although I had no 'control' over the unfolding events of the dream.

Others may be interested in testing this idea from their own experience.

*Here follows the relevant section of the lecture - as so often with Steiner, this lecture as-a-whole is a mosaic of genius, irritating self-justification, and systematised nonsense. We must be selective:

We develop the right feelings toward the dead if we become aware that their spiritual gaze — if I may use that expression — and their powers focus on us; they look at us, act in us, and add to our strength. To experience such a spiritual fact in the right way, we need to develop a very specific type of selflessness and a capacity for love. That is why I stressed that one could love that person objectively, as it were, because of her qualities; one had to love her because she was as she was. A subjective love, a love arising out of personal needs, can easily be egotistical and can potentially keep us from finding the right relationship to such a dead individual. The difference between the right love, the selfless love we have for such a person, and selfish love becomes perfectly obvious in clairvoyant experience. Let us assume such a person would want to help us after her death, but we cannot develop true selfless love for her. Her spiritual gaze, her spiritual will streaming toward us would then be like a burning sensation, causing a piercing, burning feeling in our soul. If we can feel and maintain a selfless love, this stream, her spiritual gaze as it were, flows into our soul like a feeling of warm mildness and pours itself into our thoughts, imagination, feeling, and willing. It is out of this feeling that we recognize who the dead person is and not on the basis of his or her appearance, because the dead may manifest in the guise of a person we feel close to at the moment. The form in which the beings of the higher world appear to us — and after death we are all beings of a higher, spiritual world — depends on our subjective nature, on what we habitually see, think, and feel. The reality is what we feel for the being manifest before us, how we receive what comes to us from this being. Regardless of what Joan of Arc said about the appearance of the higher beings in her visions, the occultist who is able to investigate these things knows that it was always the genius of the French nation who stood behind them. I described how we can feel the gaze of spiritual beings resting upon us and their will flowing into our souls. To learn this is analogous to learning to read on the physical plane. Those who merely want to describe their visions would be like people describing the shape of the letters on a page rather than their meaning. This shows you how easy it is to have preconceived notions about the experiences in the spiritual realm. Naturally, it seems most obvious to attach great importance to the description of what the vision looked like. However, what really matters is what lies behind the veil of perception and is expressed in the images of the vision. Thus, in the course of occult development, the soul immerses itself in specific moods and inner states different from those of our everyday life. We have entered the world of the hierarchy of angels and the hierarchy, or we could also say hierarchies, of the dead as soon as our occult exercises have brought us to the stage where the sense of touch characteristic of the physical world no longer exists, and where a person's appearance is no longer characteristic of the I concerned. Then our thinking changes and we no longer have thoughts in the sense we have them here in the physical world. In that world, every thought takes on the form of an elemental being. In the physical world, our thoughts can agree or contradict each other. In this other world we enter, thoughts encounter other thoughts as real beings, either loving or hating each other. We begin to feel our way into a world of many thought beings. And in those living thought beings, we really feel what we usually call “life.” Here life and thinking are united, whereas they are completely separate in the physical world. When we speak on the physical plane and tell our thoughts to someone, we have the feeling that our thoughts come from our soul, that we have to remember them at this particular moment. Speaking as a true occultist and not someone who just tells his experiences from memory, we will feel that our thoughts arise as living beings. We must be glad if we are blessed at the right moment with the approach of a thought as a real being. When you express your thoughts in the physical world, for example, as a lecturer, you will find it easier to give a talk for the thirtieth time than you did the first time. If, however, you speak as an occultist, thoughts always have to approach you and then depart again. Just as someone paying you the thirtieth visit had to make his way to you thirty times, the living thought we express for the thirtieth time has to come to us thirty times as it did the first time; our memory is of absolutely no use here. If you express an idea on the physical level and someone is sitting in a corner thinking, “I don't like that nonsense, I hate it,” you will not be particularly bothered by it. You have prepared your ideas and present them regardless of the positive or negative thoughts of someone in the audience. But if as an esotericist you let thoughts approach you, they could be delayed and kept away by someone who hates them or who hates the speaker. And the forces blocking that thought must be overcome because we are dealing with living beings and not merely with abstract ideas. These two examples show that as soon as we enter the sphere of clairvoyance, we are immersed in living and weaving thoughts. It is as if these thoughts are no longer subjective and as if you yourself are no longer within yourself, as if you are living outside in the wide world. When you are in this world of living and weaving thoughts, you are in the hierarchy of angels. And just as our physical world is everywhere filled with air, the world of the hierarchy of angels is filled with the mild warmth I spoke about earlier that the beings of this hierarchy pour out. When our inner development has brought us to the stage where we can live in this spiritual atmosphere of streaming mildness, we feel the spiritual eyes of the hierarchy of angels resting on our souls. Now, in our earthly life, we have certain ideals and think about them abstractly. As we think of them, we feel obligated to pursue these ideals. In the clairvoyant sphere, however, there are no abstract ideals. There ideals are living beings of the hierarchy of angels and flow through spiritual space, looking at us with warmth. In the physical world, we may have ideals, know them well, and yet we may not do anything to apply them. Our emotions, and perhaps passions, can tempt us to shirk them. However, if we knowingly ignore an ideal in the clairvoyant sphere, we feel the spiritual gaze of a being of the hierarchy of angels directed at us with reproach, and this reproach burns. In the spiritual world, ignoring an ideal is thus a reality, and a being of the hierarchy of angels reproaches us. Their gaze makes us feel the reproach; it is the reproach we feel. You see, learning to develop a real feeling for ideals is one way of entering the world of the hierarchy of angels. Limiting our consciousness to the physical plane may lead us to think that nothing will happen if we are too lazy to act on our ideals. However, we can learn to feel that if we do not act on an ideal, then, regardless of other consequences, the world becomes different from what it would have been had we followed our ideal. We are on the way to the hierarchy of angels when we begin to see that not acting on our ideals is something real, and when we can transform this insight into a genuine feeling. Transforming and vitalizing our feelings allows our souls to grow into the higher worlds.

WmJas Tychonievich clarifies that the invented 'ethical' imperative against 'ex-clusion' masks the fact of coercive and mandatory in-clusion of all individuals within the global totalitarian System ('the Matrix'); also that, increasingly, self-exclusion (that is, anybody choosing to live outside of the System and its tightly-controlled ideology) is forbidden. 

But does forbidden mean impossible? Well... not exactly. Because the System is - by design - a machine of damnation - Therefore They want everybody to want to live inside it. This is why They invited the fake positive morality of inclusion, and manufactured abhorrence of exclusion. The built-in covert assumption behind-which is that everybody, necessarily and always, wants to be on the inside.  

Because the crucially damning (i.e. salvation-rejecting) effect of the System is when people embrace and endorse the System - think by it. To regard the System as Good is a demonic value-inversion; which entails regarding Heaven as bad. 

However, the System ceases to be an effective instrument of evil when someone knows the nature of evil (i.e. opposition to God, divine creation, The Good), has recognized the System as being evil, and has rejected the System for that reason. 

The global totalitarian System is a material one, which excludes the spiritual (denies the reality of the spiritual) - because only the material realm is controllable. The System now includes all of public discourse, and all major institutions (including the churches); and its grip increases daily. 

Of course, those demonic Beings who control the System are not themselves material - and They know perfectly well the reality of God, creation and The Good (which they oppose). It is this larger perspective of the demons that enables them to control the System and to make it served the goals of damnation - while their human servants and dupes are mostly oblivious. 

The strategy of totalitarian evil is to induce an habitual, passive, unconscious materialism among all humans; thus to confine them completely within the System - hence to be able fully to monitor and control them.   

So, it is not - after all - difficult to escape the System; because the spiritual realm lies beyond. But escape is not in the physical realm - not in the realm of society or culture - not in any institution (including not in a church - when church is functioning in the public realm) - since all of these are by-now net-absorbed-into the System (corrupted, converged); and the System is evil. 

The spiritual real is explicitly known only in the realm of thinking; and within thinking in that kind of thinking that could be called direct knowing, conscious intuition or heart-thinking: in other words the spiritual is to be found in thinking that comes from our real (and divine) self. 

Such thinking is undetectable and uncontrollable by the System. 

And such thinking participates in a realm of primary thinking that is shared by, contributed-to, accessed-by - all other Beings who are engaged in intuitive direct knowing. So, we are not alone. 

Yet, heart-thinking and direct knowing are only temporary and partial states in this mortal life - which is instituted for our experience and learning - for our 'education'. We who live in this era of global totalitarianism have each, personally, much to learn from the experiences (which is indeed why we are alive, now).  

And we may - if we have made the right choices and have the right values - also have a life outside of the System in addition to the spiritual realm of primary thinking; I mean the realm of love: love of family, spouse, children, real-friends - and including (for some people) love that crosses the portal and encompasses some of the 'so-called-dead'.

So there is life outside the System; life which always and necessarily escapes the System and is free! Yet, as the System increases its scope and grip, this free and loving life is a more-and-more completely a spiritual life, which we may consciously know almost wholly in the realm of (primary) thinking.  

In relation to my post from earlier today, which emphasized the role of individual, autonomous thinking in the world; a recent visit to Glastonbury seems relevant. Glastonbury has unsurpassed importance in the deep (and mythical, as well as historical) nature of Christianity in the British Isles. 

Yet since the 1970s, it has become a magnet for a New Age neo-paganism that is "anything-but-Christianity" in its basic stance. 

This -- even when New Age neo-paganism weaves-in versions of Christian legends about Jesus visiting Somerset as a child; the site of the first Christian church in Britain (and perhaps the first outside Palestine); a foundational role of Joseph of Arimathea; and the influences of the Holy Grail (also, perhaps, the Spear of Destiny). 

Thus, many of the people encountered in and around Glastonbury are on the anti-Christian side in the spiritual war of this world. 

On the other hand, Glastonbury was the chosen residence (and spiritual focus) of the recently deceased writer Geoffrey Ashe - which counts for something positive in my book. 

So, the situation is that the surface and social aspects of Glastonbury are mostly hostile and aversive to my kind of Christian spirituality; while the depths and resonances are tremendous. 

A visit therefore depends (even more than visits usually do) on the attitude we bring to the place. I think this is the case now days, with our autonomous consciousness, than it was in the past. For example, in ancient times and into the middle ages, it seems that a place of Holy pilgrimage would have an objective and essentially-irresistible beneficial effect on the pilgrim. 

But, even if so, that is certainly not the case anymore: to physically move oneself to what was called the Holyest Erthe in England is no longer beneficial unless one brings the right frame of mind. So much is clear from observing modern 'pilgrims', or hearing them talking about their experiences. 

This recent visit was with my brother; and focused on the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey, seeking books by Dion Fortune and Gareth Knight in the esoteric bookshops, the Chalice Well, and the Holy Thorn on Wearyall Hill. 

For, no doubt, a combination of reasons; our visit to Glastonbury was successful in terms of pilgrimage. We were able to see through whatever was aversive about the surface and many of the people; and experience what lay deeper. 

The question that comes to me now, is whether this benefit was wholly explicable in terms of perceiving the past shining through the present. And I think not. 

I think that the past as such has not this power; and what we are actually experiencing in such situations is the effect of living thinking of the alive (and the so-called dead) people for whom Glastonbury is a living spiritual resource. 

In other words; perhaps we are dealing with something much like what ritual magicians term 'thought-forms', or something like Jung implied by Archetypes. The positive, holy, creative thoughts of Christians have made a living, always-present spiritual resource that may be tapped-into by those who share such motivations. 

To tap-into such thought-forms does not require geographical proximity; yet the complex of attitudes and actions required to place oneself in Glastonbury, and to move around it in an attitude of expectation, can shape the mind to become especially receptive.

And, not only receptive. Having linked to a thought-form, our own thinking will (to some extent) modify, add-to, enhance that thought-form; and it is our experience of this participation that is exactly what makes a pilgrimage special and beneficial. 

I have read quite a lot of UFO writing over the years. The reason I haven't blogged about it is that I don't have a great deal to say on the matter. But yesterday somebody asked - so here goes.

I don't rule out that - at some level - the UFO phenomenon is, or was, genuinely 'paranormal' and purposive. Yet I somehow don't regard the matter as very serious or significant - at least, not unless an interest in UFOs was to lead-onto a more spiritual way of thinking and living, as happened with John Michell (Michell's first book was about Flying Saucers).

My main hypothesis is that UFOs are part of the spiritual warfare between angels and demons; and how this is manifested to certain people in certain circumstances. However, the matter is of UFOs nearly always discussed in a materialist (and unChristian/ anti-Christian) context. In other words, some UFO phenomena are probably angels (or made by them) while others are demonic.

But UFO appearances do not seem to be a very effective method of spiritual intervention - at least not for the angels. Why would angels do such a daft thing? Well, I regard angels as fallible creatures - being not a separate creation from Men, but pre-mortal and resurrected that are Men active in earth life. That is, angels are the not yet born, and the so-called-dead. Such angels are doing their best and learning from the experience; but it is inevitable that some of their ideas will fail to achieve their intended results - and maybe UFOs are an example?

UFOs, when they originated in the late 1940s, might have been modern miracles; spiritual manifestations designed to break the belief in materialism. For example, the Fatima miracles of 1917 would probably have been interpreted as UFOs if they had occurred in 1947*.

So what may be happening with UFOs is that spiritual phenomena of light (with its ancient symbolism of divinity) were misinterpreted materialistically; as high tech spaceships piloted by aliens. Then demons (who are pre-mortal, un-incarnated-spirit Men that are actively opposed to God, Good and divine creation) may have exploited this situation; and engineered other manifestations and contacts, in order to reinforce a world view that favours their evil agenda.

This is just a vague idea, and I don't have much interest in making it more precise; but it is part of my more general understanding that modern people are so deeply and habitually materialistic; that they will reduce anything spiritual into this framework.

Many millions of people very quickly developed strong and detailed beliefs in alien existence, contact, communication and plans that were based on no more than hearsay and dishonest mass media accounts, or (more rarely) on very ambiguous personal experiences of strange phenomena.

And this happened at such a large scale and so rapidly, because modern people find aliens possible (no matter how unlikely); while angels (and demons) are ruled-out a priori - because the metaphysical Christian beliefs that make sense of angels and demons are nowadays (generally and officially) regarded with bored disdain or loathing.


*Indeed, pretty much all the ancient supernatural events of the Christian Bible, and records from other religions, have (at one time or another in the UFO literature) been re-re-interpreted and explained as early examples of interactions between humans and various combinations of alien beings, alien-advanced technologies and flying saucers. Either this - or the opposite mainstream Establishment attitude of complete rejection, mockery and denial - is how a metaphysics of extreme and convinced materialism inevitably deals with anomalous phenomena. 

It seems an unfortunate human characteristic that so many (including Men of genius) want to make Life (especially other-people's lives) into A Job. And doubly-unfortunate that so many Men seem to want this for themselves...

This came to mind when I was reading an excellent summary and analysis of Rudolf Steiner's ideas about relationship with the 'so-called' dead during our mortal lives. And then, I realized that Steiner's followers were (with his encouragement; during his life and since) spending as much as possible of their own lives studying Steiner's works, often in Steiner's prescribed order; doing Steiner's meditations and exercises; learning Steiner-facts and Steiner-interpretations... 

This reminded me then of how so many Christian denominations urge their converts in the same direction... "OK, you've joined our church... Here is a program of study, prayer and good works that will occupy (as much as possible of) your life for the next several decades"... 

This is like a recreation of at least one conception of the monastic life - where all is prescribed for every moment of every day, according to a program stretching ahead without end... 

There is a sense in which all attention, all thought is being prescribed, at least as an ideal. 

And then, in contrast, a little remark by William Arkle at his wisest; when he reflected that God does not want us to be 'thinking about God' all the time - but wants us 'to live in the way God wants us to live'; which mostly means Not thinking about God, but thinking about other people and things... Attending to what we are doing that ought to be done. 

Arkle gets this by thinking how he, as a father, would like his growing children to live. Certainly Not to be thinking-about their father all or most of the time; certainly not to be participating in rituals directed to maintaining focus on their father a great deal of time... 

Such an idea regards all Men as ideally and essentially the same, so that there is a single pattern to which each should try to fit himself. 

Yet do we really want to wake each morning with a detailed plan of how the day will be spent - and such mornings and plans stretching forward to the grave? 

This may be (to some extent) be inevitable in modern life; but is this really to be an ideal towards which we strive? Is it to be our hope for Heaven?

Not me, for sure. My ideal would be to live in a loving family environment; and to wake up most days with (at least substantially) a sense of freedom and possibility; to take stock of my-self and the people around me and the way life currently is - and to act accordingly. 

It seems easy for people to regard life as mostly the fulfillment of plans, but destiny is not ultimately about plans - because each step forward changes our perspective and possibilities. 

In a nutshell; I am saying that the ultimate principle of the ideal life is creation. 

Creation is neither law nor chaos; but a living and developing through time; with purpose, and connected-with and deriving-from the past. 

Thus we are free, because creation is an attribute of freedom, of agency, of living from the divine self; and our freedom is the reason why (my) ideal life can be, must be, and really-is free from rigid plans; why (my) ideal living is open-ended and exciting - while yet secure 'within' the chosen, indestructible Love that characterizes resurrected life in Heaven.

Yesterday I made a conceptual breakthrough in understanding the concept which is at the heart of that alternative metaphysics which seems to have emerged in the Romantic era - in the life of Goethe and the philosophy of Coleridge, but to have been rejected by the Zeitgeist and to have since led an underground and marginal or unarticulated existence in the likes of Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield (from whom I mostly got it).

Barfield focuses on the term polarity, derived from Coleridge - but I have found that this term - with its inner picture of a solid, rectangular bar magnet - is making it harder for me to grasp and use. The essence of the concept is not its having poles but that it is a dynamic process, an active thing: an -ing, as in think-ing, reason-ing, understand-ing, and imagin-ing.For me this philosophy only makes sense if I regard reality as happen-ing.

So I have decided to replace polarity with '-ing' which is the name and sound of a rune - more often called Ingwaz (and of a Norse god, also called Freyr - not the same as Freya). So the rune Ingwaz can serve me as a symbol of 'polarity', in my notetaking.

Like most good metaphysics, Ingwaz comes from the solid, primary, necessary intuition that we are thinking. From this comes the inference that whatever we think, do, know or whatever - thinking is involved. There is no way of getting-at any objective reality that does not involve thinking - it is nonsense (makes no sense) to be thinking there is an objective realm of 'facts' that are autonomous from thinking.

However, this is NOT the 'idealism' of stating that there is only mind, and 'reality' is an illusion; what is being stated is that thinking is involved in everything - therefore, everything includes thinking. The thinking cannot be detached from anything, thinking is always involved in everything.

So the division of inner mind and outer reality/ nature is nonsense; we are always and inevitably involved in everything we ever consider by thinking.

However, this thinking can be (usually is) something of which we are unaware. We therefore tend (unthinkingly) to regard the 'outside' world as if it was independent of our thinking. We tend to suppose that the outside world is real and solid, while our thinking (which is reality is involved in everything we know or imagine about that outside world) is merely ephemeral and pointless.

This is because if we divide thinking from the outside world, thinking dies - it becomes static, inert, it stops '-ing' and is a mere dead specimen ('thought'). What is really happening is that we have started thinking about a situation where there is no thinking, and are unaware that in thinking this we have not actually imagined a situation where there is no thinking - we are merely unaware of the thinking that is engaged in imagining it!

This is the modern condition. Modern analysis is unaware of - and denies - the pervasiveness of thinking at all times and in all situations. This state of unthinking doubt about thinking can be called cynicism.

So, the first move is to become aware of our own thinking in any and every situation - to recognize that everything involves thinking - we are therefore always engaged with everything, involved with everything: there is no objective alienation.

But is thinking valid? That is the fear that haunts cynical, nihilistic modern man. The fear is that - even though it makes no sense and cannot be done to use thinking to doubt the validity of thinking; maybe thinking is not valid anyway - maybe we just live in an un-avoidable delusion? The idea accepts that it makes no sense to be thinking about thinking being 'unreliable' - but maybe that is true anyway!

This cynicism, I believe, is the modern condition; it is a fear rather than a philosophy, it is a cynical suspicion that there is really no purpose, meaning or reality - and this state was facilitated by Natural Selection which seems to have 'discovered' that that is how nature works. This is untrue, and makes no sense; but the effect is rather to implant a fear, a suspicion that it might all be a delusion than to make any kind of logical point.

That has been the point at which Western thought has been stuck for more than 200 years - the fear that everything we think we know about everything comes from thinking, and that thinking - the very basis of knowing itself - might be a circular system of unavoidable but nonetheless false assumptions.

This places Man into an existential state where he does not know where to start in escaping. Once he has come to doubt thinking, then he cannot get out. All he can do is try to manipulate his emotions so as to feel better, here and now.

In fact this sense of existential nakedness is the perfect basis and understanding and clarity for feeling the necessity and reality of religious faith - which is trust - and only a loving God can be trusted... So the modern condition points to Christianity in a clearer way than anything ever has done.

(Kierkegaard probably said this too - but I can't read enough of him to be sure, and if he did say it, then he has usually been misunderstood or at least ignored.)

But the actual modern condition is an incomplete state of doubt - therefore it does not compel Christianity. The modern condition is a combination of doubt and arbitrary faith - which is so perfectly engineered to create despair, so perfectly being constantly adjusted to maintain this sense of hope-less-ness, that it implies the modern situation is a product of purposive evil (i.e. of demonic influence).

Because modern Man is not cynical enough. Or, rather, the cynic is flawed by its lack of questioning - his questioninsg of superficialities and his unthinking acceptance of deep assumptions. The modern cynic (i.e. pretty much everybody) uses thinking to deny the necessary validity of thinking on some topics (sex, esepcially), but leaves intact enough unthinking to prevent him seeing the situation as it really is.

He is obsessed by some illusions of thinking - but not others, and cynical about all positive faith - but unthinking and credulous about so much else.

Modern Man will go so far as to deny even the reality of thinking-about-thinking (i.e. metaphysics) - he will state that there is no such thing as metaphysics - simply because he does not DO metaphysics (or stops himself if he happens to start thinking about his own thinking).  He arbitrarily decides that thinking about thinking is meaningless nonsense - and is therefore trapped by his own despair-inducing assumptions - which would dissolve if ever recognized as involving thinking.

It is the residual unthinking 'faith' in thinking about some subjects (for example, faith in the idea that cynicism implies that hedonism is rational) which is destroying modern Man.

From here we can go back into unthinking acceptance of thinking - or forward into thinking about thinking: becoming aware that Everything necessarily involves thinking.

Thinking is process: Everything therefore includes process, and the world can only validly be analyzed into processes - analyzed into -ings and not into things.

This is, in fact, the metaphysical solution to the modern condition: the solution to alienation, purposelessness, meaninglessness, relativism and so on. Once grasped, the problem for each of us as individuals is then to make it our normal, indeed habitual, way of thinking.

I have to call it a sin, rather than an error, because it is a choice made despite our better instincts - nonetheless it is so common, so universal, that it is almost asif the sin is a part of normal socialisation, of growing-up in The West.

The sin is 'materialism' - which could also be called positivism, reductionism, scientism... it is the standard assumed view of all public discourse for several generations, so it doesn't have a commonly used name; since we don't name our assumptions, and are seldom even aware of them.

Materialism is what blocks that which is most necessary for us to be aware of: which is our knowledge of the reality of that 'matrix' of Beings which make up this world. The awareness that this world is alive, conscious and has purpose. We all have this knowledge, but we lack awareness of this knowledge and deny it by assumptions that (at some point in our development) we have chosen to adopt.

It is all One Big Thing, really - but there are various aspects to the assumption:

Deadness - There isn't even a word for this assumption, which almost everybody assumes... It is that ultimately everything is or will be Not Alive, but Dead. We exist in a Dead universe (the stars, planets, moon are all Dead; all submicroscopic stuff is Dead), and living things are made of Dead components. Ultimately, everything is reducible to Physics, and the entities of Physics (waves, particles, forces etc) are Not Alive, not Conscious, lack innate purpose. What is denied is our inborn assumption (and that of most people in history) that reality consists of living, and (in different ways) conscious Beings. Apparently everyone believes this at some level, but Modern man denies it - by assumption.

Entropy - We believe in the reality of entropy - the tendency to chaos, but not of love. Entropy is assumed as a universal reality, an inevitable force, a tendency of everything everywhere - breaking down, corrupting, destroying everything all of the time... but we deny by assumption the reality of any similarly universal tendency in the direction of development, creativity, life, consciousness etc.

Natural Selection - We believe that this is the sole explanation of the adaptiveness and range of life on earth - that it is the origin of life, the only cause of the variety of species, the single reason for the emergence of Man and individual Men. We deny by assumption that any of the above has any purpose; we deny that there is any reason for any of it, we deny any meaning to it. The assumption is that Natural selection Just Is, and Just Does.

You get the idea. Always and everywhere, Modern Man assumes a one-sided view of existence - he assumes that underlying reality is dead, chaotic, going nowhere and without meaning. This has not been discovered but is assumed. This assumption is not natural but chosen; and that choice was personal.

If we call this materialism, then materialism is our great sin.

  

Note: All text consists of quotations from Joseph Beuys, made in an interview with Louwrien Wijers, November 22nd 1979; published in Writing as Sculpture (1996). 

I have edited the text for clarity based on my understanding of what was intended - for which I take responsibility. Because although Beuys was fluent in English - he was not idiomatic; and often deployed German grammatical constructions - plus some personal terminology, and some from Rudolf Steiner. It is probably best to try and get an overview (Gestalt) of his meaning, rather than trying to build understanding from the accumulation of specific statements. 

Also, because this was a conversation the recorded and transcribed words benefit, I believe, from some re-arrangement, excision, and slight verbal expansion. 

My point here is to emphasize - and this surprised me considerably! - that Joseph Beuys was a serious, and tough-minded, hard-nosed, Christian; in his primary motivations, and his understanding of art, politics, society... 

And he was a romantic Christian, because he saw that (here-and-now) Christianity depends on the individual human being, personally choosing to take an active and conscious role in addressing the problems of mundane modern existence: materialism, meaninglessness, purposelessness - dead life in a dead world. 

And Beuys saw that the escape from dead-ly materialism was forward-and-through - and out the other side - by a spiritual repetition (individually, and socially) of Christ's death and resurrection.   

Christ is not symbolized: he is real! 

Christ is not a symbol for something else. He is the substance in himself. It means life, it means power - the power of life. 

Christ has already brought life. Without the substance of Christ the earth would already have died. 

So Christ is not a symbol of something... I always fear this application of 'symbols'. 

 

The most important power exists in Christ, in the elements and substance of Christ. He is a germination: the idea of the Son coming-out from spiritual entities (abstractly called 'God'). 

In the Christ element, the spiritual entities are showing the reality that this element also exists in humankind itself. We can speak of the human being because this element exists in him. 

The most important declaration of Christ in that Man is the spiritual co-operator*. This shifts the whole energy-problem to the spiritual abilities of the people, of humankind. 

Interviewer: When you say we do not need mediators between gods and people in our times, do you mean that this is a task we have to do ourselves, now?

Beuys: Yes, sure: certainly. 

And we can do it ourselves. But there must first appear, or should appear - and in fact appears already in humankind - a kind of interest to ask; and that is surely a necessity. 

To approach an understanding of world, and Man, and nature; asks for a very individual methodology. An individual mentality or ability...

At present the churches avoid speaking about the possibilities of humankind using such soul-powers, will-powers; powers of thought; and intuition, imagination and inspiration - and to come with this kind of 'ability' towards such an understanding.  

 

We need to understand that to reach the earthly condition of materialism, and to get incarnated with this idea of death; there must be a resurrection...

The Christ spirit was related to the development of the idea of analysis [leading to materialism]. 

The whole range of philosophy throughout the Western world shows more and more this analytic way, and reaches a materialist consciousness. Thus it comes to death, like Christ. 

So, in the Western world there is a kind of repetition of the mystery of Christ's life and death. It ends with the fact that we now have a materialist understanding of the world. And because of this spiritual declaration of the material intention, materialism (as a whole) is a spiritual thing...

First the earth was dead in part; but Men have long been giving death to death - they have added death articles to death principles. 

So now our earth is dead! How can this death be surpassed, renewed, regenerated? That is the great question.

Only humankind can do this. Only. Nobody else. People must do it. Men are now totally responsible for the fate of the earth and for life on earth. 

We must see that all is alive - and surpass death. 

Solving the problem of life and death is the mission of the methodology of materialism. 

People have to die, in a way; have to feel what death means - have to reach the earth. 

Death belongs to life, you know! In the spiritual meaning, life is not possible without death. 

That sounds like mysticism, but is not, because this mystery is experienced by everybody. 

People have to have, and to develop, another understanding than the materialistic understanding - which is only looking for power to exploit, with a distorting and debasing understanding of energies.

Everything depends on us! 

It is absolutely necessary to see that everything depends on us; and that we can do it! 

Very easily we can do it - it is not so difficult to do.

The whole power exists with the people. But if the the people do not use it, then the regressive powers will get stronger. 

In future; we need the strongest of human spirits - those who are able to resist in the middle of the shit! 

Who live in the midst of things; and who feel that their own abilities can only grow in the midst of problems. 

Not those who want a kind-of weak environment with a kind-of 'spiritual feeling'... 

*Meaning - Man's cooperation with God has been necessary since the time of Christ, and is ever more necessary. This is clear from (too spread-out to summarize) remarks made elsewhere. 

Dishonesty is a sin; thus a moral failing. But its roots are deeper.

The world is in a spiritual war - between God and his allies on one side; and Satan, demons, and the mass of variously evil-affiliated humans on the other. And Satan's side hugely-outnumbers God's side. 

That is the global state of play, as of 2020. It is a basic and essential fact of life. 

 

But, of course, almost everybody is blind to the fact; just as they are blind to the fact of truly staggering levels and pervasiveness of dishonesty in public discourse - extending from the international reach of the mass-social media and global/national government; to the level of millions of committees, and billions of interpersonal interactions. 

For such a moral sickness to have afflicted so many people simultaneously; indicates a deeper underlying cause. 

And that cause is the condition of spiritual blindness and denial which has swept Mankind over the past couple of centuries - beginning in The West, but now seeming to include almost everybody, everywhere. 

 

Consider that in the ancient past - from everything that is known - everybody perceived spirits, including 'the dead' and ghosts - who were present and active in the world around them. (The same was the case, if we can remember, in our early childhood.) 

But now, almost nobody does - and the reality of such spirits is denied, and their reality-significance is excluded from public discourse (including most religions).

Because spirits are denied, evil has no objective reality; because the nature of evil is spiritual; evil just-is to be on the side of the demonic spirits who are opposed to God and God's creation. 

If spirits don't exist, then evil doesn't exist - and therefore so-called-evil for Modern Man has been re-defined psychologically, subjectively and therefore relativistically. In effect; evil has now been explained-away.

 

Dishonesty too. Since honesty and truth are a product of God's creation - lies have no objective reality when creation is denied: when the universe is seen as value-free... just a collection of mechanical causes and mathematical randomness...

We can conclude that Men have changed. Modern Men sleep-through the spiritual reality of the world, in the same way that a sleeping Man is unconscious of what goes-on in the bedroom around him. The bedroom is still there, still effectual - perhaps dangerous; but the sleeper knows nothing of it.

However, this modern condition of innate spiritual insensibility is something we are 'born with'; it is an aspect of the modern condition. 

Modern Men are, in this respect, spiritually differently-set-up than Ancient Men. Modern Men just do not (except in altered and impaired states of consciousness - drugs, delirium, psychosis...) perceive spirits, the dead, ghosts etc. 

 

My understanding is that this insensibility to spirits is an aspect of the evolutionary development of consciousness - and happened because Men are destined to develop towards greater freedom, greater agency - and thus a more God-like consciousness. 

In a nutshell, because Modern man does not spontaneously perceive them - Modern Man is free to choose - and indeed Must choose - to be aware of spirits, the dead, ghosts, angels, demons etc. 

We cannot (and should not try) to choose to 'perceive' (see, hear, smell, touch) spirits; but must choose to be aware of them - to know them experientially.

(I say 'must' choose; because the alternative is this 2020 world of near-universal self-damnation.)

 

How does all this relate to honesty? 

Well, honesty (for all its practical benefits) must ultimately be a transcendental virtue - pursued for spiritual reasons. This is because it is so often expedient to be dishonest - and anything less than the full intention to know truth and communicate it truth-fully is dishonest. 

All forms of hype, spin, misleading, selectivity, exaggeration etc are In Fact dishonest - and indeed more morally wrong (because strategic and deniable) than many a plain lie.   

And truth-full-ness is impossible in a world in which the spiritual is not known, and is denied. The spiritual Just Is a part of our world, a very major - indeed primary - part; therefore there can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.   

There can be no honesty when the spiritual is excluded.

 

Or, to put it positively - to be honest we must know the spiritual realm. 

Of course, knowing the spiritual is not sufficient to salvation - since we might know the spiritual and also reject God and Creation; know the spiritual, and yet choose to fight and try to destroy all that sustains God and Creation. 

That is the demonic position - the spirits who know the reality of God and Creation yet have made an irrevocable committment to oppose God; and the devil is therefore correctly described as the Father of Lies. 

Evil regards truth as merely expedient; therefore evil is always as dishonest as is expedient - therefore the world of evil is a tissue of lies.  

(The Global System of lies, a Matrix of lies - a virtual-reality of lies...)

 

This is the deep reason why the side of evil (as represented by mainstream, world-dominant secular leftism) is incoherent: evil cannot be coherent! 

But evil does not 'need' to be coherent, because evil's purpose is to oppose God, Creation and The Good. 

Opposition need not be coherent, and it never is; it merely opposes The Good in whatever manner presents-itself; and justifies its evil using whatever excuse seems likely to be effective, here-and-now.

 

In sum - the fact of dishonesty everywhere, and all the time, is a consequence of Modern Spiritual Self-Blinding. 

Which is a product of the choice (which almost everybody seems to have made - although apart from the demons, this choice is reversible by Christian repentance) to choose Not to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual. 

Until we are again in a position where the reality - and significant, active presence - of God, angels, demons, the dead, ghosts and much else - are a part of our experience and discourse; then evil will remain dominant. 

And this is a matter of conscious choice. 

 

So every single person is ultimately responsible; there is no excuse of 'ignorance'. 

Not-choosing is not-an-option. 

You and I and everyone already-has-made a choice; but... that choice can be changed.