Francis Berger's Blog, page 101
March 30, 2021
The Perfect Slogan For Our New Totalitarian World
None are safe until all are safe.
Perfect!
The slogan has been uttered by many UN and WHO apparatchiks over the past year and has been drifting around the Internet ever since, but when I came across it again in this recently published WEF article explaining the logistics required to peck every single person on the planet - not just now during the birdemic, but annually and into perpetuity - it just hit me: Hey, that's the perfect slogan!
The great thing about "none are safe until all are safe" is its inherent impossibility. It's a corporate/government totalitarian technocrat's wildest dream come true!
Be nice! Get pecked!
Note added: The term "global public-private partnership", which is getting rather trendy as of late, should henceforth be considered a code word for "global totalitarianism".
Perfect!
The slogan has been uttered by many UN and WHO apparatchiks over the past year and has been drifting around the Internet ever since, but when I came across it again in this recently published WEF article explaining the logistics required to peck every single person on the planet - not just now during the birdemic, but annually and into perpetuity - it just hit me: Hey, that's the perfect slogan!
The great thing about "none are safe until all are safe" is its inherent impossibility. It's a corporate/government totalitarian technocrat's wildest dream come true!
Be nice! Get pecked!
Note added: The term "global public-private partnership", which is getting rather trendy as of late, should henceforth be considered a code word for "global totalitarianism".
March 28, 2021
Tell Her What I Said
The Sadies - one of the hardest-working and least known country and western/rock and roll bands on the planet - are often referred as "musician's musicians"; that is, they are better known and more respected by those inside the music industry than they are by those outside the music industry. Fronted by brothers Travis and Dallas Good, the Sadies have been plugging away at and touring their eclectic repertoire in virtual obscurity for over twenty years.
I attended high school with both brothers. We were never friends, but had many mutual friends, and my high school years are speckled with memories of seeing one or the other brother playing live with various garage bands at house parties. The brothers eventually joined forces and formed the Sadies.
When I lived in New York, I was lucky enough to catch them once in a small midtown club. Unfortunately, I ended up leaving the concert before the third set. My wife - who is often nonplussed by my musical tastes - pleaded we go home early because she found the Sadies' music to be "way too loud and way too twangy!"
Anyway, here is one of my favorite songs from this little known band. In my estimation, this particular tune is neither too loud nor too twangy:
I attended high school with both brothers. We were never friends, but had many mutual friends, and my high school years are speckled with memories of seeing one or the other brother playing live with various garage bands at house parties. The brothers eventually joined forces and formed the Sadies.
When I lived in New York, I was lucky enough to catch them once in a small midtown club. Unfortunately, I ended up leaving the concert before the third set. My wife - who is often nonplussed by my musical tastes - pleaded we go home early because she found the Sadies' music to be "way too loud and way too twangy!"
Anyway, here is one of my favorite songs from this little known band. In my estimation, this particular tune is neither too loud nor too twangy:
March 27, 2021
Chips Are Down; Sorath Stirs
Our totalitarian technocratic overlords have a great many darling Ahrimanic visions, but of these The Fourth Industrial Revolution ranks among their favorite:
The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a fundamental change in the way we live, work and relate to one another. It is a new chapter in human development, enabled by extraordinary technology advances commensurate with those of the first, second and third industrial revolutions. These advances are merging the physical, digital and biological worlds in ways that create both huge promise and potential peril. The speed, breadth and depth of this revolution is forcing us to rethink how countries develop, how organisations create value and even what it means to be human. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is about more than just technology-driven change; it is an opportunity to help everyone, including leaders, policy-makers and people from all income groups and nations, to harness converging technologies in order to create an inclusive, human-centred future. The real opportunity is to look beyond technology, and find ways to give the greatest number of people the ability to positively impact their families, organisations and communities.
This merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds that will cause us "to rethink what it means to be human" appears to be hitting a few speed bumps, most notably, the ongoing severe global shortage of microchips and semiconductors; you know, those little thingies so vital to all the extraordinary technology advances our overlords salivate over.
Unfortunately, microchips and semiconductors are also vital to most technologies we use today including mobile phones, computers, washing machines, and automobiles. The current shortage of chips has halted the production of such goods in many sectors, most notably in the automotive industry.
Naturally, the birdemic is being flagged as the chief cause of the shortage. Some experts insist the shortage is just a temporary blip and that manufacturing will be up and whirring again as soon as mass vaccinations and other birdemic efforts take effect. Others are a little more pessimistic and claim the supply constraints could last for six months or more.
I don't know about you, but none of this sounds Fourth Industrial Revolution-positive to me.
In fact, this unexpected difficulty doesn't sound too positive for our own pre-Fourth Industrial Revolution reality. If anything, this latest "challenge" may very well be another sign of Sorath emerging out from behind Ahriman's shadow.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a fundamental change in the way we live, work and relate to one another. It is a new chapter in human development, enabled by extraordinary technology advances commensurate with those of the first, second and third industrial revolutions. These advances are merging the physical, digital and biological worlds in ways that create both huge promise and potential peril. The speed, breadth and depth of this revolution is forcing us to rethink how countries develop, how organisations create value and even what it means to be human. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is about more than just technology-driven change; it is an opportunity to help everyone, including leaders, policy-makers and people from all income groups and nations, to harness converging technologies in order to create an inclusive, human-centred future. The real opportunity is to look beyond technology, and find ways to give the greatest number of people the ability to positively impact their families, organisations and communities.
This merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds that will cause us "to rethink what it means to be human" appears to be hitting a few speed bumps, most notably, the ongoing severe global shortage of microchips and semiconductors; you know, those little thingies so vital to all the extraordinary technology advances our overlords salivate over.
Unfortunately, microchips and semiconductors are also vital to most technologies we use today including mobile phones, computers, washing machines, and automobiles. The current shortage of chips has halted the production of such goods in many sectors, most notably in the automotive industry.
Naturally, the birdemic is being flagged as the chief cause of the shortage. Some experts insist the shortage is just a temporary blip and that manufacturing will be up and whirring again as soon as mass vaccinations and other birdemic efforts take effect. Others are a little more pessimistic and claim the supply constraints could last for six months or more.
I don't know about you, but none of this sounds Fourth Industrial Revolution-positive to me.
In fact, this unexpected difficulty doesn't sound too positive for our own pre-Fourth Industrial Revolution reality. If anything, this latest "challenge" may very well be another sign of Sorath emerging out from behind Ahriman's shadow.
March 25, 2021
We Need To Be Really Free. Here. Now.
The truth shall make you free.
I'm convinced that even the most non-religious, un-Christian of modern Western people are familiar with the words above. In the minds of most, I imagine the words exist alongside other short, pithy proverbs expressing a perceived truth or piece of advice: the grass is always greener on the other side; absence makes the heart grow fonder; the early bird catches the worm; the truth shall set you free.
I suspect many would be surprised to learn that it was Jesus who spoke the words above.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not suggesting modern people would be impressed or moved by the revelation that the words above are Christ's words. On the contrary, I am inclined to think most would react quite negatively to such a revelation. Nevertheless, I do believe most modern people would, nonetheless, be somewhat surprised to learn that "the truth shall make you free" was something Jesus said because I do not think modern people equate Jesus with truth or freedom.
Of course, the surprise would quickly fade and would likely be followed by shrugs. The words would remain "just another saying" and remain categorized in the proverb file with the other short, pieces of advice or perceived "truths" like don't put all your eggs in one basket, all that glitters is not gold, and a picture is worth a thousand words.
The truth shall set you free is a saying, but it is not just another saying. This is key.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
That's the passage in its entirety; it appears in the Fourth Gospel - John 8:32, to be precise.
Most moderns would struggle to understand the truth to which Christ refers in the passage above, but I imagine many Christians struggle as well. I sometimes struggle, too.
You see, what makes "the truth shall set you free" so intriguing to me is the fact that Jesus aimed the words not at unbelievers or at Pharisees, but at people who had believed in him; more specifically, at Jews who had professed to hold his teaching and be his disciples.
And how did the Jews who had declared themselves to be disciples of Christ react to being told that the truth shall make them free?
They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? (John 8:33)
Take away the part about Abraham's seed, and substitute it with something else - perhaps something related to the System, perhaps something more personal - and take a moment to consider if we as believers in Christ might not in fact respond to the truth shall make you free in the same manner the professed disciples responded when they heard Jesus speak the words to them.
My aim here is not to provide a detailed interpretation and analysis of this segment of the Gospel of John (I'll leave that to Wm Jas Tychonievich to complete on his excellent Fourth Gospel blog); my aim is to draw attention to some potentially unsettling questions.
Do we really know the truth? If we do, then we are free.
But are we really free? Not free in the strictly worldly sense, but in the deep spiritual sense to which Jesus refers?
If not, can we really claim to know the truth? To believe it?
Christ's message is a simple one. Follow me and believe on me and you will have everlasting life. This is the truth. Know this truth, and it shall make you free.
The truth is simple enough for a child to understand, as Jesus himself emphasizes many times after he challenges his so-called disciples with it. Jesus wonders why the Jews who have chosen to follow him do not understand what He is saying, why they can't hear his words, why they cannot believe him, why they choose to believe in the father of lies.
What prevents the professed followers of Christ from allowing the truth to make them free?
This is a hard question, but it has a simple answer.
They are more interested in pretending to temporally free than they are in being spiritually free. They filter the truth Jesus offers through their egos, through their false selves, through their pride, through their fear, through anything and everything that can hinder the truth from really sinking in.
The truth is simple - Jesus wants us to be free. Not a little free. Not slightly free. Not somewhat free. But really free!
If the son of man shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:36)
And all we need to do to be really free is to continue in Christ's word, and keep the saying that the truth shall make us free. Put another way, all we need to do is to believe on Christ and his offer of salvation and to not let anything stand in the way of this offer.
I have written much about the importance of system distancing in this time and place, but system distancing is not only about the external, objectified world that actively conspires and works against Christ's offer of salvation, it is also about the external, objectified world internalized within our own being - those parts of us that defiantly resist the truth and scoff at the freedom Jesus offers. Those parts that prefer to be unrepentant servants to sin and slaves to the father of lies.
When we know the truth, the objectified world dissolves, both internally and externally. Knowing the truth is a transformative experience. Everything changes. Immediately. We cease being servants and slaves and are given the chance to begin again from a solid foundation of reality from which we can build back freely and creatively.
The freedom the objectified world offered has proven to be an illusion. Even if the world opened back up tomorrow, and we could all return to the lives we had before, we would not be really free because nothing in the temporal world can ever make us really free. The only thing that can make us free is truth, and that truth resides in Christ, and only in Christ.
The vast majority of the modern world considers the truth shall set you free saying to be nothing more than a saying - a short, threadbare proverb that contains some perceived truth, but no real truth.
Our task rests not only in acknowledging the truth within the saying, but in acknowledging the saying as the Truth.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste death. (John 8:50)
Take a look around. The world strives to make us servants and slaves. The world insists we listen to lies. The world demands we turn away from the truth. The world wants us to taste death every minute of every day.
But we can choose to be free.
Really free. Free indeed. Here. Now.
I'm convinced that even the most non-religious, un-Christian of modern Western people are familiar with the words above. In the minds of most, I imagine the words exist alongside other short, pithy proverbs expressing a perceived truth or piece of advice: the grass is always greener on the other side; absence makes the heart grow fonder; the early bird catches the worm; the truth shall set you free.
I suspect many would be surprised to learn that it was Jesus who spoke the words above.
Don't misunderstand; I'm not suggesting modern people would be impressed or moved by the revelation that the words above are Christ's words. On the contrary, I am inclined to think most would react quite negatively to such a revelation. Nevertheless, I do believe most modern people would, nonetheless, be somewhat surprised to learn that "the truth shall make you free" was something Jesus said because I do not think modern people equate Jesus with truth or freedom.
Of course, the surprise would quickly fade and would likely be followed by shrugs. The words would remain "just another saying" and remain categorized in the proverb file with the other short, pieces of advice or perceived "truths" like don't put all your eggs in one basket, all that glitters is not gold, and a picture is worth a thousand words.
The truth shall set you free is a saying, but it is not just another saying. This is key.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
That's the passage in its entirety; it appears in the Fourth Gospel - John 8:32, to be precise.
Most moderns would struggle to understand the truth to which Christ refers in the passage above, but I imagine many Christians struggle as well. I sometimes struggle, too.
You see, what makes "the truth shall set you free" so intriguing to me is the fact that Jesus aimed the words not at unbelievers or at Pharisees, but at people who had believed in him; more specifically, at Jews who had professed to hold his teaching and be his disciples.
And how did the Jews who had declared themselves to be disciples of Christ react to being told that the truth shall make them free?
They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? (John 8:33)
Take away the part about Abraham's seed, and substitute it with something else - perhaps something related to the System, perhaps something more personal - and take a moment to consider if we as believers in Christ might not in fact respond to the truth shall make you free in the same manner the professed disciples responded when they heard Jesus speak the words to them.
My aim here is not to provide a detailed interpretation and analysis of this segment of the Gospel of John (I'll leave that to Wm Jas Tychonievich to complete on his excellent Fourth Gospel blog); my aim is to draw attention to some potentially unsettling questions.
Do we really know the truth? If we do, then we are free.
But are we really free? Not free in the strictly worldly sense, but in the deep spiritual sense to which Jesus refers?
If not, can we really claim to know the truth? To believe it?
Christ's message is a simple one. Follow me and believe on me and you will have everlasting life. This is the truth. Know this truth, and it shall make you free.
The truth is simple enough for a child to understand, as Jesus himself emphasizes many times after he challenges his so-called disciples with it. Jesus wonders why the Jews who have chosen to follow him do not understand what He is saying, why they can't hear his words, why they cannot believe him, why they choose to believe in the father of lies.
What prevents the professed followers of Christ from allowing the truth to make them free?
This is a hard question, but it has a simple answer.
They are more interested in pretending to temporally free than they are in being spiritually free. They filter the truth Jesus offers through their egos, through their false selves, through their pride, through their fear, through anything and everything that can hinder the truth from really sinking in.
The truth is simple - Jesus wants us to be free. Not a little free. Not slightly free. Not somewhat free. But really free!
If the son of man shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. (John 8:36)
And all we need to do to be really free is to continue in Christ's word, and keep the saying that the truth shall make us free. Put another way, all we need to do is to believe on Christ and his offer of salvation and to not let anything stand in the way of this offer.
I have written much about the importance of system distancing in this time and place, but system distancing is not only about the external, objectified world that actively conspires and works against Christ's offer of salvation, it is also about the external, objectified world internalized within our own being - those parts of us that defiantly resist the truth and scoff at the freedom Jesus offers. Those parts that prefer to be unrepentant servants to sin and slaves to the father of lies.
When we know the truth, the objectified world dissolves, both internally and externally. Knowing the truth is a transformative experience. Everything changes. Immediately. We cease being servants and slaves and are given the chance to begin again from a solid foundation of reality from which we can build back freely and creatively.
The freedom the objectified world offered has proven to be an illusion. Even if the world opened back up tomorrow, and we could all return to the lives we had before, we would not be really free because nothing in the temporal world can ever make us really free. The only thing that can make us free is truth, and that truth resides in Christ, and only in Christ.
The vast majority of the modern world considers the truth shall set you free saying to be nothing more than a saying - a short, threadbare proverb that contains some perceived truth, but no real truth.
Our task rests not only in acknowledging the truth within the saying, but in acknowledging the saying as the Truth.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste death. (John 8:50)
Take a look around. The world strives to make us servants and slaves. The world insists we listen to lies. The world demands we turn away from the truth. The world wants us to taste death every minute of every day.
But we can choose to be free.
Really free. Free indeed. Here. Now.
March 24, 2021
Until Morale Improves!
Apparently, the one year-plus of intermittent lockdowns here in Hungary - complete with social distancing, face masks, closures, curfews, and all the rest of it - have done nothing to slow or stop the slow of the birdemic.
If official sources are to be believed, Hungary is on the verge of a genuine health catastrophe. So, what does the Hungarian Medical Chamber's president suggest the country do in the face of such a disaster?
Implement even stricter lockdown measures, of course!
Why? Well, because nothing says "expert" like doubling - nay, quintupling down - on preventative measures that have continuously and persistently failed in every conceivable manner.
"Outside of grocery stores and pharmacies everything should be closed. Why should convenience stores remain open? All basic toiletries and cleaning supplies can be accessed at grocery stores. And people should plan their shopping ahead. It should not occur that I run to the store for some butter today and go again tomorrow for a kilo of bread. Grocery shopping should occur once a week.”
Da, tovarisch!
Of course, this pressured hysteria is in no way connected to the government's feverish campaign (pun intended) to peck the entire population before Easter . . . I mean, summer . . . the Oscar awards ceremony . . . well, before I don't know when.
As far as I can tell, these latest tactics carry a very clear message:
The abuse will continue until pecking morale improves!
If official sources are to be believed, Hungary is on the verge of a genuine health catastrophe. So, what does the Hungarian Medical Chamber's president suggest the country do in the face of such a disaster?
Implement even stricter lockdown measures, of course!
Why? Well, because nothing says "expert" like doubling - nay, quintupling down - on preventative measures that have continuously and persistently failed in every conceivable manner.
"Outside of grocery stores and pharmacies everything should be closed. Why should convenience stores remain open? All basic toiletries and cleaning supplies can be accessed at grocery stores. And people should plan their shopping ahead. It should not occur that I run to the store for some butter today and go again tomorrow for a kilo of bread. Grocery shopping should occur once a week.”
Da, tovarisch!
Of course, this pressured hysteria is in no way connected to the government's feverish campaign (pun intended) to peck the entire population before Easter . . . I mean, summer . . . the Oscar awards ceremony . . . well, before I don't know when.
As far as I can tell, these latest tactics carry a very clear message:
The abuse will continue until pecking morale improves!
March 23, 2021
Titanic Terrarium
An accident's sometimes the only way to worm our way back to bad decisions . . .
March 22, 2021
Power, Not Truth, Speaks To Power
Speaking truth to power ranks among the left's most cherished political tactics. A favorite of human rights advocates and other assorted activists, it has served as a defiant rallying cry against all sorts of perceived oppression and injustice.
Sold as a courageous means through which to stick it to those in charge, speaking truth to power is constructed on the age-old lie that power actually listens truth.
Let me tell you a little secret - it doesn't.
Power does not and cannot listen to truth. If it did, it would cease to be power.
There's only one thing power listens to - and that thing is power.
But for the sake of the hypothetical, let's pretend power actually could or did listen to truth. The moment it did, it would simply cease to be because it would be transformed into truth.
This is the faux logic behind the leftist rallying cry. The great march through the institutions is the professed evidence of that logic in action. "We dissolved power with the truth and turned power into truth."
But leftist truth is not truth at all, only power. If leftist truth were real truth, it would not rush in to fill the void power leaves in its wake.
When leftists claim to be speaking truth to power, they are actually speaking power to power because power is all leftism knows. Truth never enters the equation. If it did, it would not be motivated by the error of speaking to power.
Leftists believe their truth is elevated beyond all good and evil, and this is what makes their purported truth a lie.
Leftists are convinced their truth does not require God; that their truth transcends God; that their truth is God. The only god leftists worship is power.
So when leftists rant about speaking truth to power, they are really speaking power to power. Truth never enters the picture.
Truth never enters the picture because truth is God, and if there is one thing leftists hate more than anything, it is God.
The Orthodox saint, Alexander Nevsky wisely observed that God is not in power, but in truth.
Whenever Christ spoke spiritual truth to worldly power, he received mostly questions in response.
What is truth?
And when Christ spoke truth to the Grand Inquisitor, it came in the form of silence . . . sealed with a kiss.
Sold as a courageous means through which to stick it to those in charge, speaking truth to power is constructed on the age-old lie that power actually listens truth.
Let me tell you a little secret - it doesn't.
Power does not and cannot listen to truth. If it did, it would cease to be power.
There's only one thing power listens to - and that thing is power.
But for the sake of the hypothetical, let's pretend power actually could or did listen to truth. The moment it did, it would simply cease to be because it would be transformed into truth.
This is the faux logic behind the leftist rallying cry. The great march through the institutions is the professed evidence of that logic in action. "We dissolved power with the truth and turned power into truth."
But leftist truth is not truth at all, only power. If leftist truth were real truth, it would not rush in to fill the void power leaves in its wake.
When leftists claim to be speaking truth to power, they are actually speaking power to power because power is all leftism knows. Truth never enters the equation. If it did, it would not be motivated by the error of speaking to power.
Leftists believe their truth is elevated beyond all good and evil, and this is what makes their purported truth a lie.
Leftists are convinced their truth does not require God; that their truth transcends God; that their truth is God. The only god leftists worship is power.
So when leftists rant about speaking truth to power, they are really speaking power to power. Truth never enters the picture.
Truth never enters the picture because truth is God, and if there is one thing leftists hate more than anything, it is God.
The Orthodox saint, Alexander Nevsky wisely observed that God is not in power, but in truth.
Whenever Christ spoke spiritual truth to worldly power, he received mostly questions in response.
What is truth?
And when Christ spoke truth to the Grand Inquisitor, it came in the form of silence . . . sealed with a kiss.
March 21, 2021
The Increased Freedom Modern People Reject
Bruce Charlton has written an insightful post concerning modern man's ability to choose to believe in or not to believe in God.
Modern people are, of course, aware of this ability or - to use more contemporary terminology - are aware of their right to believe or not believe in God. Moreover, modern people hold this ability - this right - to be a natural extension of their freedom and agency.
In theory, moderns rank freedom and agency among the highest of values. I would go as far as to claim that modern people regard freedom and agency as supreme values, around which all other values must be subordinated, organized, and categorized.
The ability to believe in whatever one wants to believe in has - more or less - been the foundation of Western liberal democratic model of civilization for over two centuries. The more liberal and democratic our societies became through time, the more we increased our ability to believe or disbelieve whatever we wanted. As the ability to believe in or not believe in God expanded, belief in God contracted. We are now at the point where hardly any modern person in the West believes in God anymore.
To a greater or lesser degree, traditionalist Christians ascribe this decline in belief wholly to freedom and agency and posit a return to external church authority as the only means through which Christianity and the belief in God can be saved and reinstated. Though the wariness of traditionalists is justified to some extent, their largely negative interpretation of the emergence of increased freedom and agency ignores the positive potential within the expansion of the ability to choose - an expansion of freedom that can be traced all the way back to Christ's mission.
In the Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky vividly addresses the expansion of freedom Christ offers and the problem this potential expansion of freedom and agency presents. Speaking through the character of the Ivan Karamazov, who in turn relates the Grand Inquisitor's words to his brother Alyosha, Dostoevsky offers the following insights regarding the importance of freedom and agency in choosing to believe in or not believe in Jesus:
Instead of taking possession of man's freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings forever. Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid, ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the burden of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems.
The first and earliest followers of Jesus consciously accepted the increased freedom Christ offered, but the nature and quality of this increased freedom must be properly understood. Jesus appeared within a system of rigid, ancient law - a system which itself in turn was occupied by a larger, imperial system of rigid, ancient law. Within this reality, Christ's offer of increased freedom and agency provided nothing in the way of comfort, security, or expediency.
To follow Jesus then was to step beyond the ancient religious tradition that had become synonymous with an ancient religious people. To accept Christ's gift of increased freedom and agency then was to move beyond the imperial power that ruled the world. To answer Christ's desire of freely given love was to commit to the freedom and agency to decide what was good and evil, and to do so with a free heart, with only Christ's image as a guide. No external framework or societal mechanisms supported the first believers in Christ. Their decision was wholly based in internal freedom and agency. This expression of Christianity via internal freedom and agency remained in force for some time, but eventually succumbed to the power of Christianity as a structured, external authority.
In Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, the Inquisitor interprets the emergence of external Christianity authority as the only solution to Christ's overestimation of man's ability to freely choose. The Grand Inquisitor's main argument is that man's nature prevents him from living up to Christ's offer; hence, man freely surrenders his freedom to an external authority in exchange for comfort and security. Though the Grand Inquisitor's bleak assessment of Christ's offer in relation to human nature contains some truth, it regards human nature and human consciousness as largely static and incapable of development.
From the perspective of freedom and agency, the externalization of Christianity via church authority was certainly a step backward, but from the perspective of religious consciousness, it cannot be regarded as purely negative or unnecessary. The shift from an internal, freely-willed Christianity to an external, un-freely willed Christianity marks a shift in consciousness in which believers, unable to maintain the force of freedom and agency Christ offered, surrendered their freedom in exchange for a system which decreased personal freedom, but worked to develop the greater good. It is also worth noting that Christianity and the Christian message may not have been sustained had this externalization process not occurred.
In the centuries that followed, being a Christian was the default setting for nearly everyone in the West. One was simply born a Christian and had little choice but to remain a Christian. This in no way implies that the Christians of Christendom were lesser Christians; it merely acknowledges the irrelevance and, in most cases, the impossibility of choice. Eventually, freedom and agency began to resurface, but Christ's offer of increased freedom found its expression mostly in the interpretation or reinterpretation of externalized forms of Christianity, which led to the eventual splintering of Christianity along denominational lines.
The modern era presented man with the opportunity to reject external, institutionalized Christianity altogether. This emerging autonomy presented man with the possibility of returning to a state similar to that of the first and earliest Christians who chose to accept Christ's offer of increased freedom. For the first time in nearly two millennia, man became able to take the image of Christ and decide for himself what is good and what is evil.
However, unlike the first and earliest Christians, modern man is now unencumbered by ancient and rigid religious laws; that is, he is not naturally religious. He is, however, burdened with the modern and rigid laws of materialism and the prevailing zeitgeist of atheism - and it these forces that prevent man from answering Christ's call of increased freedom, as Dr. Charlton points out in his post:
To put the matter differently: adult modern Man does not spontaneously believe in God and the spiritual; because he does not perceive the divine and spiritual realm all around him, as did Men of the past.
Modern men are not spontaneously religious, do not follow tradition - are not socially conditioned into goodness and sociability. Modern man is not 'naturally' good . . .
Modern Man therefore has the ability (and it is an ability) Not to believe in God and the spiritual - and thus for the first time both can and must make the fully free choice to believe-in and to know God, to acknowledge the spiritual, to embrace the Good.
The manifestation of the ability to believe or not to believe in God is a truly striking fact about our modern world. At its core, it is a testament to human freedom and agency - to the autonomous choice that is now fully available to all.
Even more striking, our modern condition places modern people in the exact state in which Christ wants them to be . Moderns are now in the unprecedented position to decide with a free heart what is good and what is evil, and to use this knowledge to freely give their love to Him and to follow Him freely.
But the vast majority of moderns see no truth in Christ, and if they do, they reject it. Rather than embrace a state of increased freedom in which they could be free for God, modern people are intent on remaining in a state where they are free from God.
If there is tragedy to be found in any of this, it is the unacknowledged reality that freedom from God does not lead to increased freedom and agency, but to slavery and, ultimately, damnation.
Modern people are, of course, aware of this ability or - to use more contemporary terminology - are aware of their right to believe or not believe in God. Moreover, modern people hold this ability - this right - to be a natural extension of their freedom and agency.
In theory, moderns rank freedom and agency among the highest of values. I would go as far as to claim that modern people regard freedom and agency as supreme values, around which all other values must be subordinated, organized, and categorized.
The ability to believe in whatever one wants to believe in has - more or less - been the foundation of Western liberal democratic model of civilization for over two centuries. The more liberal and democratic our societies became through time, the more we increased our ability to believe or disbelieve whatever we wanted. As the ability to believe in or not believe in God expanded, belief in God contracted. We are now at the point where hardly any modern person in the West believes in God anymore.
To a greater or lesser degree, traditionalist Christians ascribe this decline in belief wholly to freedom and agency and posit a return to external church authority as the only means through which Christianity and the belief in God can be saved and reinstated. Though the wariness of traditionalists is justified to some extent, their largely negative interpretation of the emergence of increased freedom and agency ignores the positive potential within the expansion of the ability to choose - an expansion of freedom that can be traced all the way back to Christ's mission.
In the Grand Inquisitor chapter of The Brothers Karamazov, Fyodor Dostoevsky vividly addresses the expansion of freedom Christ offers and the problem this potential expansion of freedom and agency presents. Speaking through the character of the Ivan Karamazov, who in turn relates the Grand Inquisitor's words to his brother Alyosha, Dostoevsky offers the following insights regarding the importance of freedom and agency in choosing to believe in or not believe in Jesus:
Instead of taking possession of man's freedom, Thou didst increase it, and burdened the spiritual kingdom of mankind with its sufferings forever. Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid, ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the burden of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems.
The first and earliest followers of Jesus consciously accepted the increased freedom Christ offered, but the nature and quality of this increased freedom must be properly understood. Jesus appeared within a system of rigid, ancient law - a system which itself in turn was occupied by a larger, imperial system of rigid, ancient law. Within this reality, Christ's offer of increased freedom and agency provided nothing in the way of comfort, security, or expediency.
To follow Jesus then was to step beyond the ancient religious tradition that had become synonymous with an ancient religious people. To accept Christ's gift of increased freedom and agency then was to move beyond the imperial power that ruled the world. To answer Christ's desire of freely given love was to commit to the freedom and agency to decide what was good and evil, and to do so with a free heart, with only Christ's image as a guide. No external framework or societal mechanisms supported the first believers in Christ. Their decision was wholly based in internal freedom and agency. This expression of Christianity via internal freedom and agency remained in force for some time, but eventually succumbed to the power of Christianity as a structured, external authority.
In Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, the Inquisitor interprets the emergence of external Christianity authority as the only solution to Christ's overestimation of man's ability to freely choose. The Grand Inquisitor's main argument is that man's nature prevents him from living up to Christ's offer; hence, man freely surrenders his freedom to an external authority in exchange for comfort and security. Though the Grand Inquisitor's bleak assessment of Christ's offer in relation to human nature contains some truth, it regards human nature and human consciousness as largely static and incapable of development.
From the perspective of freedom and agency, the externalization of Christianity via church authority was certainly a step backward, but from the perspective of religious consciousness, it cannot be regarded as purely negative or unnecessary. The shift from an internal, freely-willed Christianity to an external, un-freely willed Christianity marks a shift in consciousness in which believers, unable to maintain the force of freedom and agency Christ offered, surrendered their freedom in exchange for a system which decreased personal freedom, but worked to develop the greater good. It is also worth noting that Christianity and the Christian message may not have been sustained had this externalization process not occurred.
In the centuries that followed, being a Christian was the default setting for nearly everyone in the West. One was simply born a Christian and had little choice but to remain a Christian. This in no way implies that the Christians of Christendom were lesser Christians; it merely acknowledges the irrelevance and, in most cases, the impossibility of choice. Eventually, freedom and agency began to resurface, but Christ's offer of increased freedom found its expression mostly in the interpretation or reinterpretation of externalized forms of Christianity, which led to the eventual splintering of Christianity along denominational lines.
The modern era presented man with the opportunity to reject external, institutionalized Christianity altogether. This emerging autonomy presented man with the possibility of returning to a state similar to that of the first and earliest Christians who chose to accept Christ's offer of increased freedom. For the first time in nearly two millennia, man became able to take the image of Christ and decide for himself what is good and what is evil.
However, unlike the first and earliest Christians, modern man is now unencumbered by ancient and rigid religious laws; that is, he is not naturally religious. He is, however, burdened with the modern and rigid laws of materialism and the prevailing zeitgeist of atheism - and it these forces that prevent man from answering Christ's call of increased freedom, as Dr. Charlton points out in his post:
To put the matter differently: adult modern Man does not spontaneously believe in God and the spiritual; because he does not perceive the divine and spiritual realm all around him, as did Men of the past.
Modern men are not spontaneously religious, do not follow tradition - are not socially conditioned into goodness and sociability. Modern man is not 'naturally' good . . .
Modern Man therefore has the ability (and it is an ability) Not to believe in God and the spiritual - and thus for the first time both can and must make the fully free choice to believe-in and to know God, to acknowledge the spiritual, to embrace the Good.
The manifestation of the ability to believe or not to believe in God is a truly striking fact about our modern world. At its core, it is a testament to human freedom and agency - to the autonomous choice that is now fully available to all.
Even more striking, our modern condition places modern people in the exact state in which Christ wants them to be . Moderns are now in the unprecedented position to decide with a free heart what is good and what is evil, and to use this knowledge to freely give their love to Him and to follow Him freely.
But the vast majority of moderns see no truth in Christ, and if they do, they reject it. Rather than embrace a state of increased freedom in which they could be free for God, modern people are intent on remaining in a state where they are free from God.
If there is tragedy to be found in any of this, it is the unacknowledged reality that freedom from God does not lead to increased freedom and agency, but to slavery and, ultimately, damnation.
March 19, 2021
System Distancing Does Not Reject the Material World; It Helps Redeem It
Over on his Brief Outlines blog, Amo Boden draws attention to a very important point regarding the perceived dichotomy of the material and the spiritual:
Owen Barfield says; "We shall not be able to save souls unless we also save the appearances".
The "appearances" are the objects of this earthly world, which include our own earthly selves. It is therefore not enough just to "combat" earthly concerns with spiritual concepts of other-worldliness. If our soul is to be saved, these objects must also be saved. Why? Because our bodies are currently one of those objects, and if this fact is ignored, and we assume we can be saved without our bodies also being saved, then we are merely escaping our humanity instead of seeking real redemption.
Steiner stressed the need to see evil as being twofold: Lucifer and Ahriman are the two extremes on either side. To ignore the world, or replace it with "higher things" is what Steiner would call the Luciferic tendency in spirituality. An example of the Ahrimanic tendency being materialism with its concept of the human being as mere biological machine.
Christ is the middle way, the balancing of the two polar extremes. He is neither the Ahrimanic materialism of the "this-worldly" nor the escapism to the "higher-worldly" of Lucifer. Hence we can see that the human ego treads between these two extremes, and in the middle is the point at which Christ touches the world. To either reduce the earth-bound ego to material processes, or to escape it completely in spiritual heights, are literally un-Christian paths.
Amo's post addresses some crucial points regarding our conceptualizations of the material and the spiritual. On the one hand, we have the materialist rejection of spiritual reality in favor of an understanding of the world as only-world. On the other hand, we have the spiritual rejection of material reality in favor of the world as only-spirit. As Amo points out in his post, both of these positions are not only fundamentally wrong, they are also fundamentally un-Christian.
I think this is crucial to bear in mind within the process of system distancing. Though it is a spiritual imperative, system distancing should not be viewed as a mode of escape via an outright rejection of the material world in order to pursue higher spiritual things. Instead, it should be motivated by the desire to redeem the material via the spiritual, which can only be achieved after one has distanced oneself from the System's corrupting and limiting conceptualization of the material world as an un-spirited, accidental, and meaningless arrangement of stuff within which only the System itself has legitimacy or meaning.
The System's blatant dismissal of the supernatural is an open conspiracy to deny the reality of God and creation. This rejection of creation relegates the material to the level of meaningless, accidental stuff. Everything becomes objectified. More significantly, the System's official mantra degrades human existence to its purely purposeless biological function.
Overall, the System is intentionally calibrated to oppose all notions of "saving the appearances." Within such a fundamentally purposeless paradigm, the only appearance the System strives to maintain is itself and its Ahrimanic role of purporting to actively control and manage the accidental and meaningless stuff of the material world in order to ensure the comfort and security of human existence.*
This conceptualization of reality, this opposition to "saving the appearances", is what system distancing boils down to. Furthermore, this freedom from the System and its opposition to creation opens up the opportunity to be free for God and creation. Nevertheless, being free for God entails not falling into conventional and misguided snares of regarding the material within creation as purely corrupting.
Though I frequently refer to the primacy of the spiritual on this blog, I am not among those who view the relationship between the material and the spiritual as a pure dichotomy. More specifically, I do not believe the material and the spiritual represent two distinct and separate parts that are locked in a state of intrinsic, diametrical, and perpetual opposition.
This idea of the physical and the spiritual as contrasting forces stems from a misguided religious understanding of the material world as something that is irretrievably fallen, sinful, limiting, corrupting, and inferior; as something that must be overcome and vanquished in order to give rise to the sinless, limitless, and superior world of the spirit may reign triumphant.
These bifurcated conceptualizations of the material versus spiritual permeate a great deal of Christian thinking. Within these lines of religious thinking, the natural world is regarded as an obstacle, as a lower level of existence that must be rejected in order for the higher, spiritual world to flourish. Put another way, the material world of objects must be conquered in order for the spiritual world of subjects to be free.
Though these beliefs contain some elements of truth, they do not order or interpret these elements of truth properly. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a dichotomous either/or framework that elevates the supernatural at the expense of the natural.
The problem with this misguided spiritual approach is obvious. The denigration of the natural world is a de facto denigration of humanity, creation, and humanity's spiritual purpose and role within material creation - to say nothing of the Christian belief in bodily resurrection.
Once again, when I refer to the primacy of the spiritual, it is not in reference to a dichotomy that defines the natural and supernatural opposites locked within an either/or framework, but rather something more akin to the understanding that the natural and the supernatural exist in a dynamic relationship based on the harmonizing force of "and".
The primacy of the spiritual in mortal life is not about choosing between the two perceived polar extremes of material and spiritual; it is, as Amo states above, the balancing and harmonizing of the "only-this-worldly" with the "only-the-otherworldly", as exemplified by Christ.
Through this balancing and harmonizing, the object is recognized for what it truly is - a subject. Once this reality is affirmed, relationships between subjects become possible and appearances can be saved.
* Dr. Bruce Charlton has recently suggested that the Ahrimanic model of totalitarianism may be tipping or may have already tipped into the Sorathic realm of destructive chaos. Something worth considering.
Owen Barfield says; "We shall not be able to save souls unless we also save the appearances".
The "appearances" are the objects of this earthly world, which include our own earthly selves. It is therefore not enough just to "combat" earthly concerns with spiritual concepts of other-worldliness. If our soul is to be saved, these objects must also be saved. Why? Because our bodies are currently one of those objects, and if this fact is ignored, and we assume we can be saved without our bodies also being saved, then we are merely escaping our humanity instead of seeking real redemption.
Steiner stressed the need to see evil as being twofold: Lucifer and Ahriman are the two extremes on either side. To ignore the world, or replace it with "higher things" is what Steiner would call the Luciferic tendency in spirituality. An example of the Ahrimanic tendency being materialism with its concept of the human being as mere biological machine.
Christ is the middle way, the balancing of the two polar extremes. He is neither the Ahrimanic materialism of the "this-worldly" nor the escapism to the "higher-worldly" of Lucifer. Hence we can see that the human ego treads between these two extremes, and in the middle is the point at which Christ touches the world. To either reduce the earth-bound ego to material processes, or to escape it completely in spiritual heights, are literally un-Christian paths.
Amo's post addresses some crucial points regarding our conceptualizations of the material and the spiritual. On the one hand, we have the materialist rejection of spiritual reality in favor of an understanding of the world as only-world. On the other hand, we have the spiritual rejection of material reality in favor of the world as only-spirit. As Amo points out in his post, both of these positions are not only fundamentally wrong, they are also fundamentally un-Christian.
I think this is crucial to bear in mind within the process of system distancing. Though it is a spiritual imperative, system distancing should not be viewed as a mode of escape via an outright rejection of the material world in order to pursue higher spiritual things. Instead, it should be motivated by the desire to redeem the material via the spiritual, which can only be achieved after one has distanced oneself from the System's corrupting and limiting conceptualization of the material world as an un-spirited, accidental, and meaningless arrangement of stuff within which only the System itself has legitimacy or meaning.
The System's blatant dismissal of the supernatural is an open conspiracy to deny the reality of God and creation. This rejection of creation relegates the material to the level of meaningless, accidental stuff. Everything becomes objectified. More significantly, the System's official mantra degrades human existence to its purely purposeless biological function.
Overall, the System is intentionally calibrated to oppose all notions of "saving the appearances." Within such a fundamentally purposeless paradigm, the only appearance the System strives to maintain is itself and its Ahrimanic role of purporting to actively control and manage the accidental and meaningless stuff of the material world in order to ensure the comfort and security of human existence.*
This conceptualization of reality, this opposition to "saving the appearances", is what system distancing boils down to. Furthermore, this freedom from the System and its opposition to creation opens up the opportunity to be free for God and creation. Nevertheless, being free for God entails not falling into conventional and misguided snares of regarding the material within creation as purely corrupting.
Though I frequently refer to the primacy of the spiritual on this blog, I am not among those who view the relationship between the material and the spiritual as a pure dichotomy. More specifically, I do not believe the material and the spiritual represent two distinct and separate parts that are locked in a state of intrinsic, diametrical, and perpetual opposition.
This idea of the physical and the spiritual as contrasting forces stems from a misguided religious understanding of the material world as something that is irretrievably fallen, sinful, limiting, corrupting, and inferior; as something that must be overcome and vanquished in order to give rise to the sinless, limitless, and superior world of the spirit may reign triumphant.
These bifurcated conceptualizations of the material versus spiritual permeate a great deal of Christian thinking. Within these lines of religious thinking, the natural world is regarded as an obstacle, as a lower level of existence that must be rejected in order for the higher, spiritual world to flourish. Put another way, the material world of objects must be conquered in order for the spiritual world of subjects to be free.
Though these beliefs contain some elements of truth, they do not order or interpret these elements of truth properly. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a dichotomous either/or framework that elevates the supernatural at the expense of the natural.
The problem with this misguided spiritual approach is obvious. The denigration of the natural world is a de facto denigration of humanity, creation, and humanity's spiritual purpose and role within material creation - to say nothing of the Christian belief in bodily resurrection.
Once again, when I refer to the primacy of the spiritual, it is not in reference to a dichotomy that defines the natural and supernatural opposites locked within an either/or framework, but rather something more akin to the understanding that the natural and the supernatural exist in a dynamic relationship based on the harmonizing force of "and".
The primacy of the spiritual in mortal life is not about choosing between the two perceived polar extremes of material and spiritual; it is, as Amo states above, the balancing and harmonizing of the "only-this-worldly" with the "only-the-otherworldly", as exemplified by Christ.
Through this balancing and harmonizing, the object is recognized for what it truly is - a subject. Once this reality is affirmed, relationships between subjects become possible and appearances can be saved.
* Dr. Bruce Charlton has recently suggested that the Ahrimanic model of totalitarianism may be tipping or may have already tipped into the Sorathic realm of destructive chaos. Something worth considering.
The Awakening of Spring
My son and I experienced the full of effect of three seasons within the span of an hour during our walk before lunch today.
When we left the house, it felt like a sunny and cool morning in late autumn. Fifteen minutes later, we were hit by the high winds and falling snow of winter. At the midway point of the walk, the snow turned to cold March rain. By the time we got back home, the clouds had cleared and a radiantly warm sun inspired us to unzip out coats and remove our hats.
Though my son and I enjoyed the rather jarring effects of today's schizophrenic weather, we are both eagerly awaiting the arrival of 'real' spring.
Last week I planted six new fruit trees in the garden - one sour cherry, one plum, one peach, one apple, and two pear trees. Though they are all quite small, I can hardly wait to see them blossom alongside the mature plum and pear trees I already have in the yard.
The Awakening of Spring - István Csok
When we left the house, it felt like a sunny and cool morning in late autumn. Fifteen minutes later, we were hit by the high winds and falling snow of winter. At the midway point of the walk, the snow turned to cold March rain. By the time we got back home, the clouds had cleared and a radiantly warm sun inspired us to unzip out coats and remove our hats.
Though my son and I enjoyed the rather jarring effects of today's schizophrenic weather, we are both eagerly awaiting the arrival of 'real' spring.
Last week I planted six new fruit trees in the garden - one sour cherry, one plum, one peach, one apple, and two pear trees. Though they are all quite small, I can hardly wait to see them blossom alongside the mature plum and pear trees I already have in the yard.
The Awakening of Spring - István Csok
