Francis Berger's Blog
October 11, 2025
The Authority of Facts is Secondary to the Authority One Grants Assumptions
In a recent post, I suggested that a big problem with contemporary traditional Christians is their assumption that
. . . Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."
Some traditional Christians interpreted this to mean that I reject things like facts and logic outright and embrace a purely solipsistic approach to life and Christianity (as if such a thing were possible).
Nevertheless, the same Christians then went on to basically affirm that my assessment of their assumptions was accurate by proudly declaring that they do indeed submit to the authority of facts and logic and could not do otherwise even if they wanted to.
A quick note about facts and logic.
We shape reality through our metaphysical assumptions, not facts or logic.
Metaphysical assumptions are the core beliefs and postulations that people use to form their explanations about the fundamental nature of reality.
Put another way, it is our metaphysical assumptions that allow us to search for facts and, subsequently, determine what we accept as facts or logic.
Thus, our assumptions shape reality, and no knowable reality exists without such assumptions.
Facts, therefore, are downstream from our metaphysical assumptions. They are secondary—not primary.
Moreover, facts and logic are symbolizations of reality, not reality itself. They offer potential symbolic knowledge about reality but are not a substitute for reality.
Thus, any declaration about submission to the authority of facts or logic is just a disguised expression of the authority granted to metaphysical assumptions.
Traditional Christians tend to regard reality as objectively given. Unfortunately, their core assumptions leave them with few other options. For them, reality basically boils down to the thrown-back knowledge of objects or beings “out there.”
I assume reality to be a co-creative, spiritual endeavor and achievement. Reality is creative transfiguration, not mere submission to objectively imposed facts.
. . . Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."
Some traditional Christians interpreted this to mean that I reject things like facts and logic outright and embrace a purely solipsistic approach to life and Christianity (as if such a thing were possible).
Nevertheless, the same Christians then went on to basically affirm that my assessment of their assumptions was accurate by proudly declaring that they do indeed submit to the authority of facts and logic and could not do otherwise even if they wanted to.
A quick note about facts and logic.
We shape reality through our metaphysical assumptions, not facts or logic.
Metaphysical assumptions are the core beliefs and postulations that people use to form their explanations about the fundamental nature of reality.
Put another way, it is our metaphysical assumptions that allow us to search for facts and, subsequently, determine what we accept as facts or logic.
Thus, our assumptions shape reality, and no knowable reality exists without such assumptions.
Facts, therefore, are downstream from our metaphysical assumptions. They are secondary—not primary.
Moreover, facts and logic are symbolizations of reality, not reality itself. They offer potential symbolic knowledge about reality but are not a substitute for reality.
Thus, any declaration about submission to the authority of facts or logic is just a disguised expression of the authority granted to metaphysical assumptions.
Traditional Christians tend to regard reality as objectively given. Unfortunately, their core assumptions leave them with few other options. For them, reality basically boils down to the thrown-back knowledge of objects or beings “out there.”
I assume reality to be a co-creative, spiritual endeavor and achievement. Reality is creative transfiguration, not mere submission to objectively imposed facts.
October 7, 2025
The False Assumption in the Either/Or Dichotomy
The following is an excerpt from an incisive comment Dr. Charlton added to a recent post of mine:
People are absolutely stuck in their assumptions that either reality is objective and out-there and to which we ought (both expediently and rationally to conform): or else (the only other option allowed) reality is subjective, something somebody feels and claims at this moment.
But BOTH of these alternatives are *incoherent* nonsense.
Instead of looking hard to find something that is (at least!) not-incoherent; people choose between the two species of nonsense - but in practice flip back and forth between them, whenever things get inconvenient.
Insofar as Christianity chooses to yoke itself to "reality is objective, out there, I do not contribute substantively to it, I must conform to it - then Christianity renders itself unfixably incoherent and irrelevant.
When this attitude is dogmatically (in the literal sense) combined with an ignorant insistence that this irrelevant incoherent metaphysics is the Only possibility - we get (inter alia) the lifestyle-level affectations and macho-posturings of trad/ orthodox Christianity.
What is so frustrating is that the false metaphysics has really nothing substantive to do with what Jesus said and did according to the IV Gospel and most of the others!
Two points.
First, assumptions asserting that reality is purely external (objective) or purely internal (subjective) are indeed incoherent. Christianity is not an either/or dichotomy. When I criticize traditional Christians for their externality, I do not assume that they or Christianity exist purely as externalities.
Christians of all stripes agree that there is more to reality than the external. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians tend to heavily favor externals over internals, often at a heavy cost to internal/subjective aspects of what it means to be a Christian. I suspect much of this arises from overemphasizing the sociopolitical aspects of Christianity (and faulty, incoherent metaphysics and theology, but I won’t go there in this post). That is where the bulk of my criticism originates, particularly as it pertains to obedience to questionable external “authorities,” be they religious or secular.
Second, my critical stance on externals in this time and place does not imply that I reject all externals since the dawn of Creation and live purely within my mind, in some sort of mental/spiritual pod or bubble, completely detached from everything and everyone, relying on nothing but my own feelings for guidance as to what is real and what is not.
I mention this only because this is the most common and most ridiculous criticism others tend to lob at me. “Hey, look at Francis. He rejects math! Hardy-har-har.”
So, reality is neither purely external nor purely internal for the simple reason that both alternatives, on their own, lead to incoherence, implying that coherence requires another way to “realize” something that, as Bruce puts it, “is at least not-incoherent.” The above should rank among a Christian’s primary motivations in this time and place.
If God wanted us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, he would have created us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, utterly unaware of anything external to us. Since we do not exist in such bubbles during mortal life, there must be something significant about "the world out there." However, this does not imply that only the world out there is significant but that you, essentially, do not count for much.
Simply stating that one must have intellectual humility and let tradition or some other external force judge what is best because one does not possess the internal resources required to discover “the (at least) not incoherent” is to state that God provides us with no reliable internal guidance whatsoever and instead forces us to be entirely dependent on the “authority” of the external, via elders, institutions, and so forth.
People are absolutely stuck in their assumptions that either reality is objective and out-there and to which we ought (both expediently and rationally to conform): or else (the only other option allowed) reality is subjective, something somebody feels and claims at this moment.
But BOTH of these alternatives are *incoherent* nonsense.
Instead of looking hard to find something that is (at least!) not-incoherent; people choose between the two species of nonsense - but in practice flip back and forth between them, whenever things get inconvenient.
Insofar as Christianity chooses to yoke itself to "reality is objective, out there, I do not contribute substantively to it, I must conform to it - then Christianity renders itself unfixably incoherent and irrelevant.
When this attitude is dogmatically (in the literal sense) combined with an ignorant insistence that this irrelevant incoherent metaphysics is the Only possibility - we get (inter alia) the lifestyle-level affectations and macho-posturings of trad/ orthodox Christianity.
What is so frustrating is that the false metaphysics has really nothing substantive to do with what Jesus said and did according to the IV Gospel and most of the others!
Two points.
First, assumptions asserting that reality is purely external (objective) or purely internal (subjective) are indeed incoherent. Christianity is not an either/or dichotomy. When I criticize traditional Christians for their externality, I do not assume that they or Christianity exist purely as externalities.
Christians of all stripes agree that there is more to reality than the external. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians tend to heavily favor externals over internals, often at a heavy cost to internal/subjective aspects of what it means to be a Christian. I suspect much of this arises from overemphasizing the sociopolitical aspects of Christianity (and faulty, incoherent metaphysics and theology, but I won’t go there in this post). That is where the bulk of my criticism originates, particularly as it pertains to obedience to questionable external “authorities,” be they religious or secular.
Second, my critical stance on externals in this time and place does not imply that I reject all externals since the dawn of Creation and live purely within my mind, in some sort of mental/spiritual pod or bubble, completely detached from everything and everyone, relying on nothing but my own feelings for guidance as to what is real and what is not.
I mention this only because this is the most common and most ridiculous criticism others tend to lob at me. “Hey, look at Francis. He rejects math! Hardy-har-har.”
So, reality is neither purely external nor purely internal for the simple reason that both alternatives, on their own, lead to incoherence, implying that coherence requires another way to “realize” something that, as Bruce puts it, “is at least not-incoherent.” The above should rank among a Christian’s primary motivations in this time and place.
If God wanted us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, he would have created us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, utterly unaware of anything external to us. Since we do not exist in such bubbles during mortal life, there must be something significant about "the world out there." However, this does not imply that only the world out there is significant but that you, essentially, do not count for much.
Simply stating that one must have intellectual humility and let tradition or some other external force judge what is best because one does not possess the internal resources required to discover “the (at least) not incoherent” is to state that God provides us with no reliable internal guidance whatsoever and instead forces us to be entirely dependent on the “authority” of the external, via elders, institutions, and so forth.
October 6, 2025
On the Matter of Discerning Babies and Bathwater
The traditional Christian insistence—fully endorsed and promulgated by their respective churches and supposed metaphysical assumptions—that they fully comprehend the significance of personal discernment to distinguish the baby from the bathwater leaves much to be desired.
Case in point—AI. Over the past few months, I have encountered several pieces written by traditional Christians in which they asked AI about the fundamental nature of reality and God and then extolled AI for displaying the logical acumen to wholeheartedly agree with the theist position the bloggers had fed it.
I responded by stating that any motivation to ask AI about God was severely perverted, as in, turned in completely the wrong direction, spiritually speaking, and that if the trad bloggers in question really wanted to contemplate the nature of reality and God, then AI was probably the last place they should look.
To my surprise, I received resounding agreement from one of the trad bloggers; however, he quickly hedged his acknowledgement of my observation by pointing out that my insight lacked authority.
Put another way, my observation was valid but carried no weight because it was not supported by any authority (apparently) other than my own, rendering it a self-consuming form of authority or, more precisely, no authority at all.
My observation then was denigrated to the level of, “You’re right, but who are you?”
Well, I’m a Christian, which means I must follow my discernment and conscience above all else and, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.
Because I am a Christian, I do not believe that my discernment is a solo effort, alienated and isolated from the Holy Ghost. I believe that the Holy Ghost guides my discernment and helps form my conscience. I do not believe that my discernment and conscience are infallible; however, I do my best to learn from my errors and repent whenever my discernment falters or fails.
And when it comes to discernment, it is precisely this kind of authority that most trad Christians conspire to deny.
Anyway, I will resist wading into the enormous flip-flop said blogger displayed by lauding the logical acumen of AI one moment (he still refers to it as his personal research assistant), to contradicting that praise by agreeing with my criticism of AI the next, but I will touch upon one point.
The blogger in question had granted the power of authority to AI when it agreed with his views of God, yet denied me the same consideration when he (mysteriously and rather inexplicably) agreed with my dismissal of AI as a spiritually viable means to seek answers about God.
I believe the above reveals much about the insincere posturing some trad-Christians exhibit when confronted with the significance of personal discernment in Christianity.
On the one hand, they are quick to emphasize that personal discernment is vital to the faith, even when it justifiably conflicts with church doctrine or dogma. Mention personal discernment, and they agree that it forms the very foundation upon which Christianity is built.
On the other hand, any expressed personal discernment that conflicts with church doctrine, dogma, or traditional Christian metaphysics is callously dismissed as insane solipsism, unanchored in anything save for personal, individualist feelings and selfish, questionable intuitions.
The bottom line is simple—if your personal discernment does not line up with the doctrine, dogma, and traditional metaphysics, it is all rainbows and soap bubbles, and you are basically mad because you dare to pit yourself against the Magisterium, or whatever.
In connection with the above, I am not sure how the personal discernment of the trad bloggers who asked AI about God lines up with traditional doctrine, dogma, traditional metaphysics, or following Jesus (aka, the Logos), but it obviously does, in ways I obviously cannot comprehend.
And that is but a sample of how trad Christians who pride themselves on being anti-modern and anti-left end up engaging in, being used by, and are ultimately consumed by leftism and leftist discourse.
By interacting with and granting the status of authority to AI—on the subject of God, of all things(!)—the trad bloggers willfully endorsed the System’s newest and latest top-down-endorsed and implemented (re: enforced) anti-spiritual, anti-God, and anti-human technological innovation.
How sublimely logical of them!
Of course, said trad bloggers do not see it that way. To them, AI is both bathwater and baby, and their only task is to discern one from the other, implying that AI has something intrinsically valuable to offer Creation, even on the subject of God.
To discern otherwise is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, more plainly, to declare that this particular aspect of officially endorsed and enforced modernism or leftism (or whatever you wish to call the totalitarianism we find ourselves in) has nothing inherently good to offer.
What an unbearable thought.
Case in point—AI. Over the past few months, I have encountered several pieces written by traditional Christians in which they asked AI about the fundamental nature of reality and God and then extolled AI for displaying the logical acumen to wholeheartedly agree with the theist position the bloggers had fed it.
I responded by stating that any motivation to ask AI about God was severely perverted, as in, turned in completely the wrong direction, spiritually speaking, and that if the trad bloggers in question really wanted to contemplate the nature of reality and God, then AI was probably the last place they should look.
To my surprise, I received resounding agreement from one of the trad bloggers; however, he quickly hedged his acknowledgement of my observation by pointing out that my insight lacked authority.
Put another way, my observation was valid but carried no weight because it was not supported by any authority (apparently) other than my own, rendering it a self-consuming form of authority or, more precisely, no authority at all.
My observation then was denigrated to the level of, “You’re right, but who are you?”
Well, I’m a Christian, which means I must follow my discernment and conscience above all else and, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.
Because I am a Christian, I do not believe that my discernment is a solo effort, alienated and isolated from the Holy Ghost. I believe that the Holy Ghost guides my discernment and helps form my conscience. I do not believe that my discernment and conscience are infallible; however, I do my best to learn from my errors and repent whenever my discernment falters or fails.
And when it comes to discernment, it is precisely this kind of authority that most trad Christians conspire to deny.
Anyway, I will resist wading into the enormous flip-flop said blogger displayed by lauding the logical acumen of AI one moment (he still refers to it as his personal research assistant), to contradicting that praise by agreeing with my criticism of AI the next, but I will touch upon one point.
The blogger in question had granted the power of authority to AI when it agreed with his views of God, yet denied me the same consideration when he (mysteriously and rather inexplicably) agreed with my dismissal of AI as a spiritually viable means to seek answers about God.
I believe the above reveals much about the insincere posturing some trad-Christians exhibit when confronted with the significance of personal discernment in Christianity.
On the one hand, they are quick to emphasize that personal discernment is vital to the faith, even when it justifiably conflicts with church doctrine or dogma. Mention personal discernment, and they agree that it forms the very foundation upon which Christianity is built.
On the other hand, any expressed personal discernment that conflicts with church doctrine, dogma, or traditional Christian metaphysics is callously dismissed as insane solipsism, unanchored in anything save for personal, individualist feelings and selfish, questionable intuitions.
The bottom line is simple—if your personal discernment does not line up with the doctrine, dogma, and traditional metaphysics, it is all rainbows and soap bubbles, and you are basically mad because you dare to pit yourself against the Magisterium, or whatever.
In connection with the above, I am not sure how the personal discernment of the trad bloggers who asked AI about God lines up with traditional doctrine, dogma, traditional metaphysics, or following Jesus (aka, the Logos), but it obviously does, in ways I obviously cannot comprehend.
And that is but a sample of how trad Christians who pride themselves on being anti-modern and anti-left end up engaging in, being used by, and are ultimately consumed by leftism and leftist discourse.
By interacting with and granting the status of authority to AI—on the subject of God, of all things(!)—the trad bloggers willfully endorsed the System’s newest and latest top-down-endorsed and implemented (re: enforced) anti-spiritual, anti-God, and anti-human technological innovation.
How sublimely logical of them!
Of course, said trad bloggers do not see it that way. To them, AI is both bathwater and baby, and their only task is to discern one from the other, implying that AI has something intrinsically valuable to offer Creation, even on the subject of God.
To discern otherwise is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, more plainly, to declare that this particular aspect of officially endorsed and enforced modernism or leftism (or whatever you wish to call the totalitarianism we find ourselves in) has nothing inherently good to offer.
What an unbearable thought.
October 4, 2025
Knowing When to Stop
Knowing when to start something is a vital part of life. The same applies to knowing when to stop.
Regular readers of this blog know I have spent the better part of nine years renovating, updating, and remodeling the house I purchased in northwestern Hungary shortly after moving here.
It’s been quite a journey. I would even call it a labor of love. Yet today, as I was installing polystyrene insulation on the last uninsulated wall on the back of the house, I experienced a mild epiphany of sorts.
I was thinking about the steps to finish the house by the end of next summer, mentally compiling a list of those final tasks, when I became aware of the pressing need to hire those tasks out to others, not because I could not complete the work myself, but because I no longer want to.
I had accomplished what I had set out to do. It was time to stop.
Granted, no homeowner ever really stops working on a house because there is always something to repair, maintain, replace, or upkeep; however, my days as the primary contractor and renovator ended today.
Come spring, I will hire others to render the exterior, lay the paving stones, and tie up the odds and ends.
Me? I plan to begin really living in the house, for a change -- and be in the yard, planting the most magnificent vegetable garden my little village has ever seen.
And more reading, thinking, praying, family time, and blogging.
Definitely more blogging.
Regular readers of this blog know I have spent the better part of nine years renovating, updating, and remodeling the house I purchased in northwestern Hungary shortly after moving here.
It’s been quite a journey. I would even call it a labor of love. Yet today, as I was installing polystyrene insulation on the last uninsulated wall on the back of the house, I experienced a mild epiphany of sorts.
I was thinking about the steps to finish the house by the end of next summer, mentally compiling a list of those final tasks, when I became aware of the pressing need to hire those tasks out to others, not because I could not complete the work myself, but because I no longer want to.
I had accomplished what I had set out to do. It was time to stop.
Granted, no homeowner ever really stops working on a house because there is always something to repair, maintain, replace, or upkeep; however, my days as the primary contractor and renovator ended today.
Come spring, I will hire others to render the exterior, lay the paving stones, and tie up the odds and ends.
Me? I plan to begin really living in the house, for a change -- and be in the yard, planting the most magnificent vegetable garden my little village has ever seen.
And more reading, thinking, praying, family time, and blogging.
Definitely more blogging.
October 1, 2025
Essentially Leftist Logos-Lovers Railing Against Leftism
It took me a long time to realize that all contemporary politics and virtually everything that connects to politics—economics, finance, culture, society in general, business, institutions, art, and organized religion—is of the left. And when I mean “of the left,” I mean exactly that. It’s leftism—all of it.
Yes, even the most conservative of conservative political parties, the most foaming at the mouth alt-rightist nationalist, and the most pious trad Christian clergyman are basically of the left for the simple reason that they continue to operate within an exclusively leftist framework under the delusion that some semblance of “the right” still exists there.
Newsflash. There is no “right” in contemporary politics. It’s all the left. All of it.
Rightists, conservatives, and so-called traditional Christians can’t seem to wrap their heads around this simple fact and continue to doggedly participate in a perceived left-right paradigm that simply does not exist.
Among the worst offenders are logos-centered Christians—you know, the ones who enjoy reminding everyone that Christ is Logos, the universal principle of law, order, and reason that underpins the reality of Creation and through which all things were created.
The metaphysics of most logos-centered Christians are easy enough to discern and grasp. For them, Christianity and reality are fundamentally objective. Reality does not submit to individuals; individuals submit to reality. Reality, then, is logos as law, or, more precisely, logos as supreme authority.
Within such metaphysical assumptions, the authority of the objective always takes precedence over the authority of the subjective for the simple fact that the subjective contains no real authority but is instead detached from “real” authority and, thus, self-consuming. If it were otherwise, there could be no objective facts; hence, no order, no beauty, truth, or goodness. No reality “out there.”
Along the same lines, Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."
Anyway, the biggest beef logos-loving Christians have against leftists is the latter’s outright refusal to submit to the unavoidable authority of the Logos as an external authority.
The crux of the ongoing conflict resides in opposing the left’s relentless campaign to impose external unreality upon external reality and call it “reality”.
The war most logos-loving Christians wage against the left is an exclusively external affair, and it is through this externality, through this “out there” focus, through this purposeful choice of battlefields, that the left has already won and will continue to win.
Put another way, logos-loving Christians will never win the war against leftism if they continue to focus almost entirely on the authority of the Logos as an externality because any exclusively external focus is inherently leftist by default.
Thus, actively engaging and participating in leftist narratives by loyally showing up and filling the external role of “the right” does little more than positively fortify the left’s external unrealities.
Claiming rightist victories and progress in certain political, social, or economic matters that are wholly externally organized, promulgated, and dictated by the left is itself a form of leftist delusion.
Everything in the external is of the left today. Politics, economics, art, religion, culture, society, and everything else that comprises the System.
Of the left. All of it.
Thus, any spiritual submission to external “reality” today is submission to the left, not the Logos.
This should induce a pause for thought. Perhaps the Logos is not entirely about the external. Perhaps it’s more of an internal matter in this time and place.
Moreover, reality may require much more from us than mere submission to external authority.
Much, much more.
Yes, even the most conservative of conservative political parties, the most foaming at the mouth alt-rightist nationalist, and the most pious trad Christian clergyman are basically of the left for the simple reason that they continue to operate within an exclusively leftist framework under the delusion that some semblance of “the right” still exists there.
Newsflash. There is no “right” in contemporary politics. It’s all the left. All of it.
Rightists, conservatives, and so-called traditional Christians can’t seem to wrap their heads around this simple fact and continue to doggedly participate in a perceived left-right paradigm that simply does not exist.
Among the worst offenders are logos-centered Christians—you know, the ones who enjoy reminding everyone that Christ is Logos, the universal principle of law, order, and reason that underpins the reality of Creation and through which all things were created.
The metaphysics of most logos-centered Christians are easy enough to discern and grasp. For them, Christianity and reality are fundamentally objective. Reality does not submit to individuals; individuals submit to reality. Reality, then, is logos as law, or, more precisely, logos as supreme authority.
Within such metaphysical assumptions, the authority of the objective always takes precedence over the authority of the subjective for the simple fact that the subjective contains no real authority but is instead detached from “real” authority and, thus, self-consuming. If it were otherwise, there could be no objective facts; hence, no order, no beauty, truth, or goodness. No reality “out there.”
Along the same lines, Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."
Anyway, the biggest beef logos-loving Christians have against leftists is the latter’s outright refusal to submit to the unavoidable authority of the Logos as an external authority.
The crux of the ongoing conflict resides in opposing the left’s relentless campaign to impose external unreality upon external reality and call it “reality”.
The war most logos-loving Christians wage against the left is an exclusively external affair, and it is through this externality, through this “out there” focus, through this purposeful choice of battlefields, that the left has already won and will continue to win.
Put another way, logos-loving Christians will never win the war against leftism if they continue to focus almost entirely on the authority of the Logos as an externality because any exclusively external focus is inherently leftist by default.
Thus, actively engaging and participating in leftist narratives by loyally showing up and filling the external role of “the right” does little more than positively fortify the left’s external unrealities.
Claiming rightist victories and progress in certain political, social, or economic matters that are wholly externally organized, promulgated, and dictated by the left is itself a form of leftist delusion.
Everything in the external is of the left today. Politics, economics, art, religion, culture, society, and everything else that comprises the System.
Of the left. All of it.
Thus, any spiritual submission to external “reality” today is submission to the left, not the Logos.
This should induce a pause for thought. Perhaps the Logos is not entirely about the external. Perhaps it’s more of an internal matter in this time and place.
Moreover, reality may require much more from us than mere submission to external authority.
Much, much more.
September 24, 2025
A Homeric Cyclops
Lego has been a part of my son's life since he was four or so. He's thirteen now and still builds in his spare time. He began submitting some of his builds to an online Lego-building site and has managed to win a few of the challenges. His latest win was his "Homeric Cyclops" build, which he entered for the "Mythical Creature Build" contest. 
I like the knight cowering behind the tree nervously gripping his sword.
Some of his other builds include "The Medieval Blacksmith Shop."
Sisyphus. 
And my personal favorite, "The Empire on Vacation." 
I like the knight cowering behind the tree nervously gripping his sword.Some of his other builds include "The Medieval Blacksmith Shop."
Sisyphus. And my personal favorite, "The Empire on Vacation."
September 21, 2025
High Levels of System Participation Preclude Final Participation
Although I am not very well-versed in Barfield’s ideas concerning participation, I think I have grasped the basic concepts enough to understand that the Final Participation Barfield envisioned is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from the System.
Barfield advocated for a conscious re-engagement with the world that synthesized analytical and logical thinking (alpha thinking) with our intuitive and imaginative thinking to fully perceive and, more significantly, actively participate in the spiritual that underpins all Creation.
Such active participation raises consciousness to a state of co-creation; that is, the fusing of imagination and reason to not just perceive but assiduously participate in creating deeper and richer interactions with and experiences of reality (Creation). Barfield also suggested that such active (Final) participation would dissolve the demarcation line currently separating the perceiver from the perceived.
Original Participation entailed an absence of systems or extremely rudimentary systems that were spiritually attuned to the aliveness of everything in Creation. The eventual rise of systems dissolved Original Participation and detached consciousness from its immersion in Creation. Consciousness shifted from being spiritually attuned and fully immersed in Creation toward a state of self-awareness and detachment. The separation between the perceiver and the perceived was established and became fully entrenched. Consciousness essentially became alienated from its source.
The rise of self-consciousness allowed analytical, logical, and conceptual thinking to flourish; however, it came at the cost of fortifying the false barrier man had constructed between himself and Creation. Spiritual systems were able to bridge this gap to some degree through symbols and rituals; however, the symbols and rituals lost their power over time, and spiritual systems essentially became “bridges to nowhere.”
Barfield adamantly maintained that a return to Original Participation was neither possible nor desirable, implying that Final Participation should involve the re-imagining and re-creation of the sorts of systems that dissolved Original Participation.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Barfield also did not advocate for a return to the same sorts of spiritual systems (churches) that came to dominate consciousness after they had eclipsed Original Participation.
It also seems clear that a divinely-minded consciousness cannot be the “product” of a system. Put another way, systems cannot induce Final Participation. Hence, Final Participation must occur at the personal and individual level first.
Whether that spills over into any sort of system and what kind of system such a system would actually be is secondary. At present, I can only imagine Final Participation at the group level within a family or a small circle of friends, but such a development would seem to require simultaneous experiences of Final Participation within individuals who then recognize such developments in themselves and others.
Returning to the main point expressed in the first paragraph of this post, I am firmly convinced that Final Participation is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from our current System, primarily because our current System is brazenly anti-God and anti-Creation—and yes, this sadly includes the bulk of what constitutes Christian organizations and institutions.
Our current System is not only anti-God and anti-Creation; it is also opposed to divine-mindedness. Thus, high-level attachment to the System precludes the fostering and nurturing of the divine consciousness Barfield envisioned.
Final Participation involves the generation of co-creation. Spiritual participation in our current System is only likely to induce co-destruction.
Believing that divine consciousness is somehow the “product” of a system and that spiritual systems of the past can nurture and foster divine consciousness are telltale signs of high levels of attachment to the System. Despite beliefs to the contrary, reforming the System will not generate the kind of divine-mindedness Barfield envisioned.
If we are serious about becoming more divinely-minded, then we must forgo a high level of System attachment.
At the present time, this appears to entail adopting an “in it but not of it” spiritual perspective that forgoes temptations to improve, reform, restructure, or rectify the System in favor of actively re-engaging with Creation at a deeper, more unified level.
To sum up, high levels of spiritual “participation” in the System hinder, if not outright prevent, the divinely-minded consciousness required for Final Participation in Creation.
Barfield advocated for a conscious re-engagement with the world that synthesized analytical and logical thinking (alpha thinking) with our intuitive and imaginative thinking to fully perceive and, more significantly, actively participate in the spiritual that underpins all Creation.
Such active participation raises consciousness to a state of co-creation; that is, the fusing of imagination and reason to not just perceive but assiduously participate in creating deeper and richer interactions with and experiences of reality (Creation). Barfield also suggested that such active (Final) participation would dissolve the demarcation line currently separating the perceiver from the perceived.
Original Participation entailed an absence of systems or extremely rudimentary systems that were spiritually attuned to the aliveness of everything in Creation. The eventual rise of systems dissolved Original Participation and detached consciousness from its immersion in Creation. Consciousness shifted from being spiritually attuned and fully immersed in Creation toward a state of self-awareness and detachment. The separation between the perceiver and the perceived was established and became fully entrenched. Consciousness essentially became alienated from its source.
The rise of self-consciousness allowed analytical, logical, and conceptual thinking to flourish; however, it came at the cost of fortifying the false barrier man had constructed between himself and Creation. Spiritual systems were able to bridge this gap to some degree through symbols and rituals; however, the symbols and rituals lost their power over time, and spiritual systems essentially became “bridges to nowhere.”
Barfield adamantly maintained that a return to Original Participation was neither possible nor desirable, implying that Final Participation should involve the re-imagining and re-creation of the sorts of systems that dissolved Original Participation.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear that Barfield also did not advocate for a return to the same sorts of spiritual systems (churches) that came to dominate consciousness after they had eclipsed Original Participation.
It also seems clear that a divinely-minded consciousness cannot be the “product” of a system. Put another way, systems cannot induce Final Participation. Hence, Final Participation must occur at the personal and individual level first.
Whether that spills over into any sort of system and what kind of system such a system would actually be is secondary. At present, I can only imagine Final Participation at the group level within a family or a small circle of friends, but such a development would seem to require simultaneous experiences of Final Participation within individuals who then recognize such developments in themselves and others.
Returning to the main point expressed in the first paragraph of this post, I am firmly convinced that Final Participation is virtually impossible without a high level of detachment from our current System, primarily because our current System is brazenly anti-God and anti-Creation—and yes, this sadly includes the bulk of what constitutes Christian organizations and institutions.
Our current System is not only anti-God and anti-Creation; it is also opposed to divine-mindedness. Thus, high-level attachment to the System precludes the fostering and nurturing of the divine consciousness Barfield envisioned.
Final Participation involves the generation of co-creation. Spiritual participation in our current System is only likely to induce co-destruction.
Believing that divine consciousness is somehow the “product” of a system and that spiritual systems of the past can nurture and foster divine consciousness are telltale signs of high levels of attachment to the System. Despite beliefs to the contrary, reforming the System will not generate the kind of divine-mindedness Barfield envisioned.
If we are serious about becoming more divinely-minded, then we must forgo a high level of System attachment.
At the present time, this appears to entail adopting an “in it but not of it” spiritual perspective that forgoes temptations to improve, reform, restructure, or rectify the System in favor of actively re-engaging with Creation at a deeper, more unified level.
To sum up, high levels of spiritual “participation” in the System hinder, if not outright prevent, the divinely-minded consciousness required for Final Participation in Creation.
September 20, 2025
My Take on Life Imitating Art
Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog (circa 1818) is one of my favorite Caspar David Friedrich paintings. Even those unfamiliar with Friedrich's work have likely encountered the painting somewhere before. 
Anyway, I spent the day hiking around the Schneeberg, the easternmost and northernmost mountain of the Alps higher than 2000 meters.
The mountain is visible from my village in northwestern Hungary, and I have been gazing upon it for over a decade with the intention to see it up close and hike it one day.
Well, today was that day, and while I was hiking the trails near the summit, I seized the opportunity to do my own take on Freidrich's iconic painting.
I call it Doofus Above the Sun-Drenched Mountains. Enjoy!
Anyway, I spent the day hiking around the Schneeberg, the easternmost and northernmost mountain of the Alps higher than 2000 meters. The mountain is visible from my village in northwestern Hungary, and I have been gazing upon it for over a decade with the intention to see it up close and hike it one day.
Well, today was that day, and while I was hiking the trails near the summit, I seized the opportunity to do my own take on Freidrich's iconic painting.
I call it Doofus Above the Sun-Drenched Mountains. Enjoy!
September 18, 2025
Why Is the System So Vital to Christians?
Many Christians obsess over the system. Their biggest concern is that the current system is not a Christian system, and they pine for a day when the system will be Christian again. If not that, then at least a more Christian-leaning system, or a system that is not openly anti-Christian.
Whichever way they lean, most Christians appear to agree on the fundamental need for a system. System is regarded as a sacred construct that has been inverted. If it is not rescued and reformed, it will continue to decay into utter disorder, which is unthinkable. Thus, the system must be realigned and restored.
I don't think such realignment or restoration would do much for Christianity as a whole.
Far from being sacred, the system -- any human system on earth organizing men into societies -- strikes me as a sort of necessary evil; an inevitable part of mortal life, like suffering, entropy, and death. Sure, the system keeps us alive and offers us all sorts of necessities, comforts, and pleasures, but it also has tendency to conflict with and stultify spirit.
Christians seem to believe that a Christian system will not exhibit such tendencies, that it will instead nurture and protect spirit. I sense that Christian systems may have offered such nurturing and protection in the past, but it was always at the price of freedom, self-discovery, and personal spiritual growth (spirit was subjected to and subdued by the external forces of churches, dogma, doctrine, etc).
I very much doubt any Christian system would nurture or protect anything today. Quite the opposite.
All of that aside, most Christians seem blind to the larger point about the significance and supposed sacredness of "system." It strikes me that Jesus was not keen on the system during his life on earth and was mostly uninterested in the machinations and functionings of any system. His teachings are glaringly un-systematic, as is his offer of everlasting life in Heaven.
Although Christians will argue otherwise and point to the Gospels for "proof," I do not believe Jesus' prime mission was the establishment of a system of salvation, let alone an ideal system for earthly life.
In fact, I do not think these were even a secondary or tertiary aims.
Whichever way they lean, most Christians appear to agree on the fundamental need for a system. System is regarded as a sacred construct that has been inverted. If it is not rescued and reformed, it will continue to decay into utter disorder, which is unthinkable. Thus, the system must be realigned and restored.
I don't think such realignment or restoration would do much for Christianity as a whole.
Far from being sacred, the system -- any human system on earth organizing men into societies -- strikes me as a sort of necessary evil; an inevitable part of mortal life, like suffering, entropy, and death. Sure, the system keeps us alive and offers us all sorts of necessities, comforts, and pleasures, but it also has tendency to conflict with and stultify spirit.
Christians seem to believe that a Christian system will not exhibit such tendencies, that it will instead nurture and protect spirit. I sense that Christian systems may have offered such nurturing and protection in the past, but it was always at the price of freedom, self-discovery, and personal spiritual growth (spirit was subjected to and subdued by the external forces of churches, dogma, doctrine, etc).
I very much doubt any Christian system would nurture or protect anything today. Quite the opposite.
All of that aside, most Christians seem blind to the larger point about the significance and supposed sacredness of "system." It strikes me that Jesus was not keen on the system during his life on earth and was mostly uninterested in the machinations and functionings of any system. His teachings are glaringly un-systematic, as is his offer of everlasting life in Heaven.
Although Christians will argue otherwise and point to the Gospels for "proof," I do not believe Jesus' prime mission was the establishment of a system of salvation, let alone an ideal system for earthly life.
In fact, I do not think these were even a secondary or tertiary aims.
The Chicks Are Growing Up
Back in July I reported on the hatching of five chicks. They are now just over two months old, and it is now clearly discernible that they comprise three roosters and two hens (the roosters are to the left in the photo).
I am happy about the hens, but I'm not sure what I will do with the roosters. Four male birds in the coop may prove untenable (four includes the dad, Richie Ricardo).
We'll see.
In the meantime, I'm content to just watch them develop.
I am happy about the hens, but I'm not sure what I will do with the roosters. Four male birds in the coop may prove untenable (four includes the dad, Richie Ricardo).
We'll see.
In the meantime, I'm content to just watch them develop.
