Francis Berger's Blog, page 23
July 16, 2024
Summer Projects: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Summer has been and continues to be home renovation time for me. That's what happens when you buy an old house in rural Hungary. Long-time readers of this blog will recall some of my previous renovation adventures like the henhouse, greenhouse, workshop, and block fence.
Well, this year I have tackled a tool shed, front door stoop/steps, and the pig barn or, as I privately like to call them, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Let's start with the good -- the tool shed.
I finished the bulk of this wooden 4x3 meter tool shed back in June and think it turned out quite well. Situated between the henhouse and the old, unused pig barn, this wood structure is now home to my gardening tools, cement mixer, and lawnmowing equipment. I still need to complete some finishing touches, but for all intents and purposes, I'll call this project completed.
Next, we'll move onto the bad -- the front door steps/stoop.
I refer to this as "the bad" because it still requires tiling and is not very attractive in its current, rough-around-the-edges form; however, I won't complete the tiling until after the new front door is installed later this summer. Otherwise, it's not really bad at all.
Finally, we have the ugly - the unused pig barn.
Isn't she a beauty? She used to house nearly all the junk that now decorates the yard.
As the photos above illustrate, I have just started working on this particular project, which means I am solely in the demolition phase. I removed the old roof constructed of cement-based roofing tiles, apparently laced with asbestos and other fun things, and am currently in the process of tearing down some of the interior to open up the space within.
Once that is done, I plan to pour a new concrete floor, plaster the interior and exterior walls, build a new roof, and add some doors and windows. If all goes well, I will finish the building at the end of August.
Well, this year I have tackled a tool shed, front door stoop/steps, and the pig barn or, as I privately like to call them, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Let's start with the good -- the tool shed.
I finished the bulk of this wooden 4x3 meter tool shed back in June and think it turned out quite well. Situated between the henhouse and the old, unused pig barn, this wood structure is now home to my gardening tools, cement mixer, and lawnmowing equipment. I still need to complete some finishing touches, but for all intents and purposes, I'll call this project completed. Next, we'll move onto the bad -- the front door steps/stoop.
I refer to this as "the bad" because it still requires tiling and is not very attractive in its current, rough-around-the-edges form; however, I won't complete the tiling until after the new front door is installed later this summer. Otherwise, it's not really bad at all. Finally, we have the ugly - the unused pig barn.
Isn't she a beauty? She used to house nearly all the junk that now decorates the yard. As the photos above illustrate, I have just started working on this particular project, which means I am solely in the demolition phase. I removed the old roof constructed of cement-based roofing tiles, apparently laced with asbestos and other fun things, and am currently in the process of tearing down some of the interior to open up the space within.
Once that is done, I plan to pour a new concrete floor, plaster the interior and exterior walls, build a new roof, and add some doors and windows. If all goes well, I will finish the building at the end of August.
July 15, 2024
Background Music That Proved Distracting
My job involves revising manuscripts (I know, I know), entailing that I spend much time at the computer reading documents and articles for which I have zero interest. Thoroughly reading texts one finds inherently uninteresting requires epic levels of concentration. Oddly enough, I have found that playing background music increases my concentration provided that the music itself is not too distracting.
My background music choice has always been classical music; however, I have noticed that a moving sonata or symphony in the background distracts me from the mundane task at hand.
Recently, I have begun playing electronic DJ music streams. I don’t know what the genre and subgenres are called officially, nor do I care. What matters is that the “music” on these streams is reliably monotonous enough to not be distracting yet lively and rhythmic enough to keep me focused on my on-screen work. In other words, DJ streams appear to be the perfect background music for working, at least for me.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that all DJ streams are non-distracting. Case in point, the link below. Note: it was the video accompanying the music, not the music itself that veered my mind off work for nearly an hour.
Featuring a DJ named Marsh aboard a narrow-gauge steam train called the Snowdonia Star as it makes its way along the Welsh Highland Railway in Northern Wales, the video captures the most pleasing and alluring landscape I have seen in a while
I have never been to Wales and had no idea the Welsh countryside is so beautiful.
The scenery is charming, exquisite, and breathtaking throughout. Worth a peek even if, like me, you find DJ music to be less than...well, less than music...
My background music choice has always been classical music; however, I have noticed that a moving sonata or symphony in the background distracts me from the mundane task at hand.
Recently, I have begun playing electronic DJ music streams. I don’t know what the genre and subgenres are called officially, nor do I care. What matters is that the “music” on these streams is reliably monotonous enough to not be distracting yet lively and rhythmic enough to keep me focused on my on-screen work. In other words, DJ streams appear to be the perfect background music for working, at least for me.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that all DJ streams are non-distracting. Case in point, the link below. Note: it was the video accompanying the music, not the music itself that veered my mind off work for nearly an hour.
Featuring a DJ named Marsh aboard a narrow-gauge steam train called the Snowdonia Star as it makes its way along the Welsh Highland Railway in Northern Wales, the video captures the most pleasing and alluring landscape I have seen in a while
I have never been to Wales and had no idea the Welsh countryside is so beautiful.
The scenery is charming, exquisite, and breathtaking throughout. Worth a peek even if, like me, you find DJ music to be less than...well, less than music...
July 13, 2024
Dissent is Not Repentance; Or,Why Gotta Make a Living Excuses Nothing
There’s this line of thinking, mostly among secular alt-right, anti-woke, dissident type bloggers, that believes that going along to get along with the System publicly is acceptable as long such plain public submission is balanced out by private objection or anonymous/pseudonymous public dissent.
The rationale supporting this noble position? Hey, everyone’s gotta make a living!
In a post titled, “why anonymity matters in public discourse” (small caps intentional), the writer who blogs under the pseudonym el gato malo offers the following thoughts on the subject (gato’s text in italics, my thoughts in roman):
there seems to be a profound undercurrent of self-styled "intellectuals" opposing the idea of anonymous speech.
here's why, even leaving aside such basic ideas as "assess an argument on its merits as opposed to upon who made it" and the shallow credentialism and ad hominem it engenders, i think anonymity remains not only important, but vital in our current world:
I was before 2020. I still hold reservations about those who express dissent publicly under false names and alter egos, but 2020 showed me that the whole business of being anonymous/pseudonymous in public discourse has become a secondary or tertiary matter within the larger scope of things. More on that later.
we live in a technocratic and bureaucratic regulatory state. permission is required for the most mundane of activities from catching a fish to building a house to (most of all) making a living and building a business. you need a permit or license or approval for everything. you need it to operate a restaurant, serve liquor, sell a drug, issue securities, have a bank account, practice law, practice medicine, and even if you don’t, your employer almost certainly does. the list is near endless and the greater your ambition, the more you need permission. you cannot just open a savings and loan or a lemonade stand. such practice requires affirmative assent, assent that can easily be withheld or revoked.
when one reaches a certain point of pervasiveness in this trend, we're all essentially hostages and when the agencies and agents that issue licensure, permission, and prerogative get politicized and weaponized, this puts many of the most astute, educated, and competent people in a real bind.
they face a hobson's choice if they would disagree with whatever narrative finds current currency:
stay silent or lose your livelihood.
No disagreement there. The above is an accurate and valid assessment of what it means to live within the totalitarian System today. We are all essentially hostages, though I would go a step further and say slaves .
Now, here’s the thing. How should people — Christians in particular — think, act, function, and live under the shadow of such an acknowledgment/discernment? El gato malo offers the following illustrative example:
look what happened all covid. doctors that spoke out saw their medical licenses threatened and even taken. laws were passed to enable and require this. institutions lined up against anyone internally who bucked or asked questions because they themselves got the message from on high that "if you want to keep being a hospital, you better shut down these ideas."
imagine a debate about a vaccine. imagine you're the CEO or the chief science officer of a publicly traded drug company. you're well positioned to have a valid and valuable take, but if that take is one the state does not like, what will happen? criticizing the FDA is not a path to getting your drug approved. it's likely a way to get it buried. so what do you do?
it's easy for people to say "stand up anyway! adhere to your principles and sacrifice your livelihood and life's work!" but that's always really easy to say about someone else's life, isn't it? and even that is far too limiting.
so this person should allow an unrelated drug with years and 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars in research behind it, a drug that could save or improve lives, get backbenched at FDA, harming them, putting his or her employees out of work, and harming shareholders and sick people because they wish to speak what they believe is the truth about another topic in which they are expert?
what kind of choice is that?
(it’s certainly not one that only affects the chooser.)
but this is the choice that permission based regulatory states always create the minute they get politicized. the vast class of competent builders is silenced because to speak against the narrative means you cannot build anymore because building takes permission and permission is controlled by commissars loyal to a faction that does not brook dissent.
you think loads of fortune 500 CEOs' think global warming isn't a scam or DEI isn’t drivel? they know it's a scam. but they cannot speak lest they find their businesses under fire. many thought the same about the mRNA jabs. again, crickets. you simply cannot put your business and all those who work for it and depend upon it at risk from a state that practices regulatory lawfare.
this creates a perfect, one-sided scenario where the “business leaders” who speak are nearly all “pro regime” and those who oppose it are silenced in self-censorship. they do not need to be threatened directly. they know what happens if you step out of line.
“nice FCC license you got there, be a shame if you opened your fat yap and something happened to it”
“i see you’d like to do an S-1 to IPO your company. let’s check your social credit score!”
“hey, remember that bank account you used to have?”
it’s potent stuff to stifle and silence dissent from the “great and good.”
To summarize the above, most people probably know the System is evil and oppose it privately, but they willingly comply with the System publicly to:Make a livingKeep businesses runningProtect business and jobsEnsure efforts to “do good” within the System are not threatened or snuffed out The limits of el gato malo’s assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality shine brighter than the noonday sun, so I won’t bother wading into all of that here.
What troubles me are Christians who espouse essentially identical views and attitudes about being a slave within the System. More on that later, too.
Anyway, so what is el gato malo’s ultimate solution?
and anonymity fixes this.
it allows speech to flourish and creates a true market for ideas free from the market breaking taxation without representation of “speak up and lose your license” that has been used to such chilling effect of late as unelected as unaccountable bureaucrats become the guardians of ideological purity and their “forever state” comes to dominate the speech of professions and professionals.
this idea that people grab anon handles so they can lie and cheat is nearly all inversion and projection. mostly, it’s people wishing to speak freely and share such truth as they perceive without having to live beneath the constant hammer of reprisal against their lives and livelihoods.
were the federalist papers published under “publius” a problem or a solution? were they a cowardly subterfuge and refusal to own up to opinion or a brave attempt to move the overton window and build consensus against a regime that would have arrested such authors had they put their names on it?
“if you’re not willing to lose your business due to government depermissioning or face arrest to speak, then i guess you don’t mean it!” is a ridiculous standard and a false trade off and falser framing.
the fact that such a trade off exists in the first place is already proof positive that the permission based system of life and work is pernicious and predatory. who save a tyrant or a demagogue would choose or demand such a system?
“come out where we can shoot you!” said the powerful force to the freedom fighter.
“come sign our government registry to be allowed to speak against the government” is not the most reassuring of offers.
are we really expected to say yes?
“those who debate me must provide proper ID” is the demand of a bully planning to come for you on some other board.
if this is really about ideas and their validity, then why do you need to know who we are?
you can keep your credentials if you like and appeal to them and claim credence is due.
(how’s that been working out for you BTW? lol.)
we the anons are happy to engage from a position of no base trust and earn such respect as we may garner fairly, freely, and openly in the reputation economy.
can anyone really find principled fault with such a course?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact. I certainly can. Allow me to elaborate. Allowing speech to flourish and a true market of ideas is a dead-end road meant to trap people in the information mode of secondary thinking when they should instead be focused on primary thinking and spiritual creativity. Information, whether anonymous or not, solves nothing and advances nothing. On the contrary, it plays directly to the System’s favor by keeping engaged in System information discourse. The last thing people need is more information and debate. What people need is knowledge. Spiritual knowledge. Directly accessed and directly known. Whether this knowledge is publicly communicated as a commodity in a marketplace is irrelevant. What matters is that the direct knowledge occurred. More on that later.What exactly are people like el gato malo advocating for here? Are they suggesting that their wonderful anonymous ideas will eventually and quite magically activate some form of dissent or revolution at the level of the masses, all without people like el gato malo ever having to put any skin in the game other than to blog and tweet their defiance anonymously/pseudonymously? Do people like el gato malo really believe they are “safe” behind their pseudonyms? Seriously? Is private/anonymous dissent enough to excuse making a living while under total public compliance with and submission to the System? I’ll refer to an earlier post to expand on the problem of information and secondary thinking (my excerpt below in italics):
Those who oppose the totalitarian aims espoused by organizations like the WEF recognize the information manipulation and seek to counteract it with truthful information. Though far more noble in intent and motivation, the aim of disseminating such truth-seeking information misses the mark concerning the bigger picture of human consciousness and its relation to reality.
In short, the war we are in is fundamentally a spiritual war, not an information war.
Many recognize and understand the totalitarian push to control the narrative. They fail to discern that the core problem is the exclusive and obsessive focus on engaging with narrative through secondary thinking, thereby keeping consciousness firmly entrenched in representational reality as reality (or, in keeping consciousness locked in the Information Age and its related thinking).
Clown World is not simply striving to control information and secondary thinking; they want to ensure human consciousness remains trapped in a state of information overload and secondary thinking.
Though they claim otherwise, I suspect that at the deepest, most fundamental level, Clown World and the demonic forces it serves welcome information opposition to their secondary-level information manipulations because it keeps human consciousness firmly fixated on representations as reality rather than on Reality.
Thus, keeping people engaged in information wars not only helps to distract from the spiritual war but also helps to hinder the further development of human consciousness.
I am not implying that those waging the information war against Clown World are intentionally entrapping people at the secondary level of thinking. Unlike the WEF — which deliberately uses information to enslave people in secondary-level thinking via representations that are directly opposed to God and Creation — information warriors on the side of good share representations that often can and do act as intermediaries to Truth and Reality; however, many information warriors treat the intermediaries themselves as Truth and Reality, and this is where the problems set in.
The information warriors who utilize representational intermediaries or the people who engage with the intermediaries the warriors produce — be it in the form of writing, symbols, spoken language, art, video, etc. — contribute virtually nothing to the spiritual war or the development of consciousness if they go no further than the intermediaries in terms of thinking and knowing or, worse, regard the intermediaries as Reality.
Winning the spiritual war and connecting with Truth and Reality does not and cannot boil down to being informed, an essentially passive state in which one allows the external to shape, fashion, give shape to, and teach reality via representations presented and accepted as Reality.
Being informed in that manner keeps one asleep and the plaything of Morpheus and his dream-forming brothers. Informed people who regard representations as Reality are dreamers living in a dreamland.
I am not implying that the representational is dispensable.
On the contrary, it is vital, but only when we understand that it serves as a go-between and not a final destination. In this sense, the representations the good info warriors provide are far superior to the information promulgated by the likes of the WEF, which serves more as a go-nowhere rather than a go-between. Yet representations on the side of good can only do good if they are treated as intermediaries — that is, used to orient and/or connect to Reality.
That connection to Reality happens beyond the representational, in the realm of primary thinking — the realm of non-representational direct-knowing originating from and connecting to the primal self. Although representational, secondary thinking can inspire, motivate, and guide individuals toward primary thinking, it cannot substitute for primary thinking.
Berdyaev observed that “truth has two meanings: truth as knowledge of reality, and truth as reality itself.” In this sense, information via representations (language, symbols) is truth as knowledge of reality, while direct-knowing is truth about Reality itself.
Berdyaev offers another way to think about it, “I wish to know, not actuality, but the truth about actuality. And I may learn what this truth is, only because in me, the knowing subject, there is a source of truth and because I may communicate with this truth.”
Communicating with this source of truth goes well beyond the state of “being informed”, i.e., of knowing actuality. It requires locating an innate, internal source of truth that can connect with Reality directly, moving beyond the realm of representations.
Information is intended to serve as a bridge to Reality, not substitute Reality.
Information as reality is, at best, only partial reality. We see the bridge but do not understand what it is for or mistake it for something else. Like all bridges, information provides a means to get across from one side to another. Their purpose is distorted if they remain uncrossed or if the other side into which they extend is disbelieved or denied.
As Berdyaev notes, “Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality.”
As a final point, I will add that dissent is no substitute for repentance. All Christians must resist being “held hostage” by the System, even if it threatens their livelihoods, but in lieu of that, Christians must repent their involvement and compliance with the System, even if they don’t have any choice in the matter or even if gotta make a living.
Private, anonymous, or pseudonymous dissent is not repentance.
Not even close.
I don’t expect bloggers like el gato malo to “get” any of what I have covered above, but it is my sincere hope that (at least) some Christians out there will/do.
The rationale supporting this noble position? Hey, everyone’s gotta make a living!
In a post titled, “why anonymity matters in public discourse” (small caps intentional), the writer who blogs under the pseudonym el gato malo offers the following thoughts on the subject (gato’s text in italics, my thoughts in roman):
there seems to be a profound undercurrent of self-styled "intellectuals" opposing the idea of anonymous speech.
here's why, even leaving aside such basic ideas as "assess an argument on its merits as opposed to upon who made it" and the shallow credentialism and ad hominem it engenders, i think anonymity remains not only important, but vital in our current world:
I was before 2020. I still hold reservations about those who express dissent publicly under false names and alter egos, but 2020 showed me that the whole business of being anonymous/pseudonymous in public discourse has become a secondary or tertiary matter within the larger scope of things. More on that later.
we live in a technocratic and bureaucratic regulatory state. permission is required for the most mundane of activities from catching a fish to building a house to (most of all) making a living and building a business. you need a permit or license or approval for everything. you need it to operate a restaurant, serve liquor, sell a drug, issue securities, have a bank account, practice law, practice medicine, and even if you don’t, your employer almost certainly does. the list is near endless and the greater your ambition, the more you need permission. you cannot just open a savings and loan or a lemonade stand. such practice requires affirmative assent, assent that can easily be withheld or revoked.
when one reaches a certain point of pervasiveness in this trend, we're all essentially hostages and when the agencies and agents that issue licensure, permission, and prerogative get politicized and weaponized, this puts many of the most astute, educated, and competent people in a real bind.
they face a hobson's choice if they would disagree with whatever narrative finds current currency:
stay silent or lose your livelihood.
No disagreement there. The above is an accurate and valid assessment of what it means to live within the totalitarian System today. We are all essentially hostages, though I would go a step further and say slaves .
Now, here’s the thing. How should people — Christians in particular — think, act, function, and live under the shadow of such an acknowledgment/discernment? El gato malo offers the following illustrative example:
look what happened all covid. doctors that spoke out saw their medical licenses threatened and even taken. laws were passed to enable and require this. institutions lined up against anyone internally who bucked or asked questions because they themselves got the message from on high that "if you want to keep being a hospital, you better shut down these ideas."
imagine a debate about a vaccine. imagine you're the CEO or the chief science officer of a publicly traded drug company. you're well positioned to have a valid and valuable take, but if that take is one the state does not like, what will happen? criticizing the FDA is not a path to getting your drug approved. it's likely a way to get it buried. so what do you do?
it's easy for people to say "stand up anyway! adhere to your principles and sacrifice your livelihood and life's work!" but that's always really easy to say about someone else's life, isn't it? and even that is far too limiting.
so this person should allow an unrelated drug with years and 10’s or 100’s of millions of dollars in research behind it, a drug that could save or improve lives, get backbenched at FDA, harming them, putting his or her employees out of work, and harming shareholders and sick people because they wish to speak what they believe is the truth about another topic in which they are expert?
what kind of choice is that?
(it’s certainly not one that only affects the chooser.)
but this is the choice that permission based regulatory states always create the minute they get politicized. the vast class of competent builders is silenced because to speak against the narrative means you cannot build anymore because building takes permission and permission is controlled by commissars loyal to a faction that does not brook dissent.
you think loads of fortune 500 CEOs' think global warming isn't a scam or DEI isn’t drivel? they know it's a scam. but they cannot speak lest they find their businesses under fire. many thought the same about the mRNA jabs. again, crickets. you simply cannot put your business and all those who work for it and depend upon it at risk from a state that practices regulatory lawfare.
this creates a perfect, one-sided scenario where the “business leaders” who speak are nearly all “pro regime” and those who oppose it are silenced in self-censorship. they do not need to be threatened directly. they know what happens if you step out of line.
“nice FCC license you got there, be a shame if you opened your fat yap and something happened to it”
“i see you’d like to do an S-1 to IPO your company. let’s check your social credit score!”
“hey, remember that bank account you used to have?”
it’s potent stuff to stifle and silence dissent from the “great and good.”
To summarize the above, most people probably know the System is evil and oppose it privately, but they willingly comply with the System publicly to:Make a livingKeep businesses runningProtect business and jobsEnsure efforts to “do good” within the System are not threatened or snuffed out The limits of el gato malo’s assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality shine brighter than the noonday sun, so I won’t bother wading into all of that here.
What troubles me are Christians who espouse essentially identical views and attitudes about being a slave within the System. More on that later, too.
Anyway, so what is el gato malo’s ultimate solution?
and anonymity fixes this.
it allows speech to flourish and creates a true market for ideas free from the market breaking taxation without representation of “speak up and lose your license” that has been used to such chilling effect of late as unelected as unaccountable bureaucrats become the guardians of ideological purity and their “forever state” comes to dominate the speech of professions and professionals.
this idea that people grab anon handles so they can lie and cheat is nearly all inversion and projection. mostly, it’s people wishing to speak freely and share such truth as they perceive without having to live beneath the constant hammer of reprisal against their lives and livelihoods.
were the federalist papers published under “publius” a problem or a solution? were they a cowardly subterfuge and refusal to own up to opinion or a brave attempt to move the overton window and build consensus against a regime that would have arrested such authors had they put their names on it?
“if you’re not willing to lose your business due to government depermissioning or face arrest to speak, then i guess you don’t mean it!” is a ridiculous standard and a false trade off and falser framing.
the fact that such a trade off exists in the first place is already proof positive that the permission based system of life and work is pernicious and predatory. who save a tyrant or a demagogue would choose or demand such a system?
“come out where we can shoot you!” said the powerful force to the freedom fighter.
“come sign our government registry to be allowed to speak against the government” is not the most reassuring of offers.
are we really expected to say yes?
“those who debate me must provide proper ID” is the demand of a bully planning to come for you on some other board.
if this is really about ideas and their validity, then why do you need to know who we are?
you can keep your credentials if you like and appeal to them and claim credence is due.
(how’s that been working out for you BTW? lol.)
we the anons are happy to engage from a position of no base trust and earn such respect as we may garner fairly, freely, and openly in the reputation economy.
can anyone really find principled fault with such a course?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact. I certainly can. Allow me to elaborate. Allowing speech to flourish and a true market of ideas is a dead-end road meant to trap people in the information mode of secondary thinking when they should instead be focused on primary thinking and spiritual creativity. Information, whether anonymous or not, solves nothing and advances nothing. On the contrary, it plays directly to the System’s favor by keeping engaged in System information discourse. The last thing people need is more information and debate. What people need is knowledge. Spiritual knowledge. Directly accessed and directly known. Whether this knowledge is publicly communicated as a commodity in a marketplace is irrelevant. What matters is that the direct knowledge occurred. More on that later.What exactly are people like el gato malo advocating for here? Are they suggesting that their wonderful anonymous ideas will eventually and quite magically activate some form of dissent or revolution at the level of the masses, all without people like el gato malo ever having to put any skin in the game other than to blog and tweet their defiance anonymously/pseudonymously? Do people like el gato malo really believe they are “safe” behind their pseudonyms? Seriously? Is private/anonymous dissent enough to excuse making a living while under total public compliance with and submission to the System? I’ll refer to an earlier post to expand on the problem of information and secondary thinking (my excerpt below in italics):
Those who oppose the totalitarian aims espoused by organizations like the WEF recognize the information manipulation and seek to counteract it with truthful information. Though far more noble in intent and motivation, the aim of disseminating such truth-seeking information misses the mark concerning the bigger picture of human consciousness and its relation to reality.
In short, the war we are in is fundamentally a spiritual war, not an information war.
Many recognize and understand the totalitarian push to control the narrative. They fail to discern that the core problem is the exclusive and obsessive focus on engaging with narrative through secondary thinking, thereby keeping consciousness firmly entrenched in representational reality as reality (or, in keeping consciousness locked in the Information Age and its related thinking).
Clown World is not simply striving to control information and secondary thinking; they want to ensure human consciousness remains trapped in a state of information overload and secondary thinking.
Though they claim otherwise, I suspect that at the deepest, most fundamental level, Clown World and the demonic forces it serves welcome information opposition to their secondary-level information manipulations because it keeps human consciousness firmly fixated on representations as reality rather than on Reality.
Thus, keeping people engaged in information wars not only helps to distract from the spiritual war but also helps to hinder the further development of human consciousness.
I am not implying that those waging the information war against Clown World are intentionally entrapping people at the secondary level of thinking. Unlike the WEF — which deliberately uses information to enslave people in secondary-level thinking via representations that are directly opposed to God and Creation — information warriors on the side of good share representations that often can and do act as intermediaries to Truth and Reality; however, many information warriors treat the intermediaries themselves as Truth and Reality, and this is where the problems set in.
The information warriors who utilize representational intermediaries or the people who engage with the intermediaries the warriors produce — be it in the form of writing, symbols, spoken language, art, video, etc. — contribute virtually nothing to the spiritual war or the development of consciousness if they go no further than the intermediaries in terms of thinking and knowing or, worse, regard the intermediaries as Reality.
Winning the spiritual war and connecting with Truth and Reality does not and cannot boil down to being informed, an essentially passive state in which one allows the external to shape, fashion, give shape to, and teach reality via representations presented and accepted as Reality.
Being informed in that manner keeps one asleep and the plaything of Morpheus and his dream-forming brothers. Informed people who regard representations as Reality are dreamers living in a dreamland.
I am not implying that the representational is dispensable.
On the contrary, it is vital, but only when we understand that it serves as a go-between and not a final destination. In this sense, the representations the good info warriors provide are far superior to the information promulgated by the likes of the WEF, which serves more as a go-nowhere rather than a go-between. Yet representations on the side of good can only do good if they are treated as intermediaries — that is, used to orient and/or connect to Reality.
That connection to Reality happens beyond the representational, in the realm of primary thinking — the realm of non-representational direct-knowing originating from and connecting to the primal self. Although representational, secondary thinking can inspire, motivate, and guide individuals toward primary thinking, it cannot substitute for primary thinking.
Berdyaev observed that “truth has two meanings: truth as knowledge of reality, and truth as reality itself.” In this sense, information via representations (language, symbols) is truth as knowledge of reality, while direct-knowing is truth about Reality itself.
Berdyaev offers another way to think about it, “I wish to know, not actuality, but the truth about actuality. And I may learn what this truth is, only because in me, the knowing subject, there is a source of truth and because I may communicate with this truth.”
Communicating with this source of truth goes well beyond the state of “being informed”, i.e., of knowing actuality. It requires locating an innate, internal source of truth that can connect with Reality directly, moving beyond the realm of representations.
Information is intended to serve as a bridge to Reality, not substitute Reality.
Information as reality is, at best, only partial reality. We see the bridge but do not understand what it is for or mistake it for something else. Like all bridges, information provides a means to get across from one side to another. Their purpose is distorted if they remain uncrossed or if the other side into which they extend is disbelieved or denied.
As Berdyaev notes, “Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality.”
As a final point, I will add that dissent is no substitute for repentance. All Christians must resist being “held hostage” by the System, even if it threatens their livelihoods, but in lieu of that, Christians must repent their involvement and compliance with the System, even if they don’t have any choice in the matter or even if gotta make a living.
Private, anonymous, or pseudonymous dissent is not repentance.
Not even close.
I don’t expect bloggers like el gato malo to “get” any of what I have covered above, but it is my sincere hope that (at least) some Christians out there will/do.
July 11, 2024
Old Age Starts in Your Fifties
Assuming you manage to live that long, the focus of old age should involve spiritually turning away from the world and shifting your thinking and attention to death, salvation, and life in the next world, more precisely, Heaven. All of that involves reflecting upon and contemplating spiritual learning in mortal life.
I suppose that raises the question of when old age begins.
Well, in my estimation, old age starts somewhere in the fifties. Yes, fifties. I'll be 53 in about two weeks, and I consider that to be early old age.
It matters little if you make it to a hundred; the truth is you start getting old somewhere in your early fifties, implying that you should act and think accordingly at around that time.
Old in your fifties? A half-century of contemplating death and the next world? But I can still play tennis! I just got a promotion. My sex life is spectacular — no Viagra needed. I'm still expanding my business. I’m planning a world tour after I retire. Blah, blah, blah.
Fine. Dismiss it, but don’t be surprised by what you get in return.
I suppose that raises the question of when old age begins.
Well, in my estimation, old age starts somewhere in the fifties. Yes, fifties. I'll be 53 in about two weeks, and I consider that to be early old age.
It matters little if you make it to a hundred; the truth is you start getting old somewhere in your early fifties, implying that you should act and think accordingly at around that time.
Old in your fifties? A half-century of contemplating death and the next world? But I can still play tennis! I just got a promotion. My sex life is spectacular — no Viagra needed. I'm still expanding my business. I’m planning a world tour after I retire. Blah, blah, blah.
Fine. Dismiss it, but don’t be surprised by what you get in return.
July 8, 2024
Four Storks and a Pair of Swallows
A month ago, I commented on how tough the spring had been on the birds in my immediate surroundings. Thankfully, summer has offered a reprieve -- at least for some birds.
The village storks successfully hatched four, yes four, chicks, all of which appear healthy and strong today. Overall, it seems to have been a banner year for storks. Nearly every nest I have passed contains at least three young birds, with four being common.
Also, a pair of swallows stealthily nested in my workshop. I was working on a shed and kept the workshop over the past couple of weeks and kept the workshop door open every day to retrieve whatever tools I needed.
The swallows saw the opportunity and took it. While I was constructing a shed, they busied themselves by building a nest in the workshop. I was oblivious to their presence and only became aware of them after they had completed the nest.
So, I now share the workshop with a nesting pair of swallows and keep the door open for them all the time. They tend to fly away whenever I enter the workshop, but they always return.
It will be interesting to see if their nesting endeavor succeeds. If it does, I'll hear the peeping and chirping of swallow chicks very soon and make up for some of the bird-related calamities I observed in the spring.
July 7, 2024
Christianities, Not Christianity
Christian bloggers invest considerable time and energy outlining the “is-ness” of Christianity as if this “is-ness” existed as some abstract, absolute, objective law or eternal system that requires unquestioned acknowledgment followed by unfaltering submission and obedience.
If such an “is-ness” of Christianity exists, then explaining the endless and ongoing splintering and divisions within Christianity becomes inexplicable, perhaps even incoherent and nonsensical, particularly when you factor in the general rejection of consciousness development through time.
My understanding of the “is-ness” of Christianity is encapsulated in an augmented, non-Biblical passage from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely into heaven, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with a free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and with a free heart actively choose resurrection and everlasting life, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
As I have stated many times, the passage above captures what Christianity is or, at the very least, what Christianity should be, primarily because it stresses the subjective, individual, relational, personal, and freely chosen foundation of what it means to be a Christian. This foundation automatically reveals the illusion of “the Christianity” while simultaneously confirming the reality of Christianities.
Christianities because at its very core, all Christianity emerges and lives via the relationships established between the individual and Christ and, at a far deeper level, between the relationship and interactions between an individual’s true self and the Holy Ghost, implying that each personal Christianity is unique, distinctive, unrepeatable, and irreproducible in much the way every relationship between two individuals is unique, distinctive, unrepeatable, and irreproducible.
The adamant pursuit of “the Christianity” that incorporates all is a futile and misguided quest. What needs to be acknowledged and pursued instead is the reality of Christianities, of the millions of individual, personal relationships with Jesus, which form the basis of any potential commerce with other Christians.
None of this implies the automatic validity of each personal Christianity. On the contrary, Jesus remains the nexus of all personal Christianities. Any potential interlinking, connection, union, or integration with other Christianities depends heavily on recognizing Christ as the nucleus of all personal Christianities.
Christianities that reject certain aspects of freedom in favor of the ancient law stray from the “is-ness” of Jesus as the nexus of all personal Christianities. As do Christianities that superimpose His image on the milieu of complying with the laws and inversions of contemporary this-worldly correctness. Christianities that deny the development of consciousness, insist upon the supremacy of institutions over the individual relationships with Christ, downplay the significance of Heaven, Bible-thump instead of seeking direct knowledge, reduce Christianity to philosophy, and so forth, all inevitably wander away from the “is-ness” of freely choosing to allow his image serve as a guide.
A personal, individual Christianity is only valid if it is directly known. Christianities that exclusively rely upon indirect knowledge — be it in the form of theology, doctrines, scripture, tradition, etc. — or that elevate the basic principles of such knowledge over direct knowledge are drifting irretrievably away from the “is-ness” of what Christianity was from the very beginning and is unflinchingly unveiling today.
Directly-known Christianities are hard to communicate, but the essence of such direct knowledge — of such “is-ness” — is discernible, provided one remains open to such possibilities (re: reality) and understands what to look for.
If such an “is-ness” of Christianity exists, then explaining the endless and ongoing splintering and divisions within Christianity becomes inexplicable, perhaps even incoherent and nonsensical, particularly when you factor in the general rejection of consciousness development through time.
My understanding of the “is-ness” of Christianity is encapsulated in an augmented, non-Biblical passage from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov:
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely into heaven, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with a free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, and with a free heart actively choose resurrection and everlasting life, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
As I have stated many times, the passage above captures what Christianity is or, at the very least, what Christianity should be, primarily because it stresses the subjective, individual, relational, personal, and freely chosen foundation of what it means to be a Christian. This foundation automatically reveals the illusion of “the Christianity” while simultaneously confirming the reality of Christianities.
Christianities because at its very core, all Christianity emerges and lives via the relationships established between the individual and Christ and, at a far deeper level, between the relationship and interactions between an individual’s true self and the Holy Ghost, implying that each personal Christianity is unique, distinctive, unrepeatable, and irreproducible in much the way every relationship between two individuals is unique, distinctive, unrepeatable, and irreproducible.
The adamant pursuit of “the Christianity” that incorporates all is a futile and misguided quest. What needs to be acknowledged and pursued instead is the reality of Christianities, of the millions of individual, personal relationships with Jesus, which form the basis of any potential commerce with other Christians.
None of this implies the automatic validity of each personal Christianity. On the contrary, Jesus remains the nexus of all personal Christianities. Any potential interlinking, connection, union, or integration with other Christianities depends heavily on recognizing Christ as the nucleus of all personal Christianities.
Christianities that reject certain aspects of freedom in favor of the ancient law stray from the “is-ness” of Jesus as the nexus of all personal Christianities. As do Christianities that superimpose His image on the milieu of complying with the laws and inversions of contemporary this-worldly correctness. Christianities that deny the development of consciousness, insist upon the supremacy of institutions over the individual relationships with Christ, downplay the significance of Heaven, Bible-thump instead of seeking direct knowledge, reduce Christianity to philosophy, and so forth, all inevitably wander away from the “is-ness” of freely choosing to allow his image serve as a guide.
A personal, individual Christianity is only valid if it is directly known. Christianities that exclusively rely upon indirect knowledge — be it in the form of theology, doctrines, scripture, tradition, etc. — or that elevate the basic principles of such knowledge over direct knowledge are drifting irretrievably away from the “is-ness” of what Christianity was from the very beginning and is unflinchingly unveiling today.
Directly-known Christianities are hard to communicate, but the essence of such direct knowledge — of such “is-ness” — is discernible, provided one remains open to such possibilities (re: reality) and understands what to look for.
June 25, 2024
A Brief Blogging Break
I should be back within a week. Until then.
June 22, 2024
Heat Wave Blues
We have just suffered through our first heat wave of the summer here in northwestern Hungary. Temps remained well above 32 degrees Celsius for the better part of a week, which really put a damper on working outside. Thankfully, we returned to more seasonable temperatures today, and it looks like they will continue to hold for the next week or two.
So, how did I feel during this particular heat wave?
Well, readers may remember my posts about Hirschl-Hirémy's Souls on the Banks of the Archeron .
Below is the "heatwave" version of the same painting. 
So, how did I feel during this particular heat wave?
Well, readers may remember my posts about Hirschl-Hirémy's Souls on the Banks of the Archeron .
Below is the "heatwave" version of the same painting.
June 20, 2024
What is About Solstices and Equinoxes?
I look forward to the solstices and equinoxes every year, but I can’t for the life of me understand why.
Perhaps there is something primordial ingrained into our consciousness, with some being more intrigued or sensitive to the movements of the earth around the sun and the lengthening or shortening of daylight hours.
Today is the longest day of the year, with Midsummer’s Day a scant four days away. Though it will strike most as peculiar, when it comes to the idea of midsummer, I agree with Dr. Charlton’s assessment that the summer solstice/Midsummer Day marks the middle of the summer rather than its beginning.
My garden provides ample “evidence” that this is indeed the case. The early blooming flowers have all withered away, while the later blossoming ones are now in full bloom. Though quite lush and green, the grass hints that it will soon take a break and dry out before engaging in a late all-or-nothing growth spurt toward the beginning of August. The fattened onion bulbs bulge from the soil while the tops grow brown and whither. Most of the tomato plants are bearing fruit, albeit still green. The lettuce continues to grow but is slowly going to seed.
Yes, there are still many hot summer days ahead. Yet, I would argue that half of summer is already behind us and that people who take their summer holidays in mid-August are vacationing in early autumn despite all appearances to the contrary.
The winter solstice as the middle of winter is an easier sell, particularly in northern countries where the days grow noticeably shorter, and the weather tends to turn for the worse after the Autumn Equinox in September.
Although November is still “officially” autumn, people tend to regard it as a winter month, especially when the cold rains or first snowfalls arrive.
By the time we get Christmas, we feel as if we have been in winter for a while, and very few people I know have ever declared the winter equinox or Christmas to be the beginning of winter.
Perhaps there is something primordial ingrained into our consciousness, with some being more intrigued or sensitive to the movements of the earth around the sun and the lengthening or shortening of daylight hours.
Today is the longest day of the year, with Midsummer’s Day a scant four days away. Though it will strike most as peculiar, when it comes to the idea of midsummer, I agree with Dr. Charlton’s assessment that the summer solstice/Midsummer Day marks the middle of the summer rather than its beginning.
My garden provides ample “evidence” that this is indeed the case. The early blooming flowers have all withered away, while the later blossoming ones are now in full bloom. Though quite lush and green, the grass hints that it will soon take a break and dry out before engaging in a late all-or-nothing growth spurt toward the beginning of August. The fattened onion bulbs bulge from the soil while the tops grow brown and whither. Most of the tomato plants are bearing fruit, albeit still green. The lettuce continues to grow but is slowly going to seed.
Yes, there are still many hot summer days ahead. Yet, I would argue that half of summer is already behind us and that people who take their summer holidays in mid-August are vacationing in early autumn despite all appearances to the contrary.
The winter solstice as the middle of winter is an easier sell, particularly in northern countries where the days grow noticeably shorter, and the weather tends to turn for the worse after the Autumn Equinox in September.
Although November is still “officially” autumn, people tend to regard it as a winter month, especially when the cold rains or first snowfalls arrive.
By the time we get Christmas, we feel as if we have been in winter for a while, and very few people I know have ever declared the winter equinox or Christmas to be the beginning of winter.
June 18, 2024
Thoughts So Deep They're Meaningless
Adam Piggott has picked up on my criticism of professional development Over at his blog, he describes a particularly curious team-building activity involving white water rafting. It's well worth a read if you haven’t seen it.
Team building aside, reading Adam's post reminded me of the “deep thoughts” aspect of PD sessions, which serve as the pièce de resistance of those torturous events.
Deep thoughts shared during professional development are meant to be earth-shattering, life-changing snippets of information that blow your mind and transform your thinking about life, the universe, and everything.
You know they’re deep because they're usually followed by “learning nugget” activities in which the PD participants collaborate in five-minute “mini-sessions” with the learning outcome of “unpacking” the profound implications of the deep thought in question.
Unfortunately, most of the deep thoughts expressed during professional development are deep enough to be essentially meaningless.
Case in point, during one of the countless PD days I had to endure when I worked as a high school teacher, the “mistress of ceremonies” (yes, she referred to herself as that) shared the following deep thought:
Seventy-five percent of the jobs our students will do in the future don’t exist yet. Our task as educators is to utilize our best practices to prepare our students for those nonexsistent jobs.
After the sonic boom of the expressed deep thought subsided, I joined four of my colleagues in an impromptu learning-nugget mini-session during which we were supposed to brainstorm the implications of the deep thought.
I looked at my colleagues and said, “Deep. Real deep. So deep, it’s meaningless.”
It was the only learning nugget I could offer in response to the sagacity of the deep thought that had been expressed.
Team building aside, reading Adam's post reminded me of the “deep thoughts” aspect of PD sessions, which serve as the pièce de resistance of those torturous events.
Deep thoughts shared during professional development are meant to be earth-shattering, life-changing snippets of information that blow your mind and transform your thinking about life, the universe, and everything.
You know they’re deep because they're usually followed by “learning nugget” activities in which the PD participants collaborate in five-minute “mini-sessions” with the learning outcome of “unpacking” the profound implications of the deep thought in question.
Unfortunately, most of the deep thoughts expressed during professional development are deep enough to be essentially meaningless.
Case in point, during one of the countless PD days I had to endure when I worked as a high school teacher, the “mistress of ceremonies” (yes, she referred to herself as that) shared the following deep thought:
Seventy-five percent of the jobs our students will do in the future don’t exist yet. Our task as educators is to utilize our best practices to prepare our students for those nonexsistent jobs.
After the sonic boom of the expressed deep thought subsided, I joined four of my colleagues in an impromptu learning-nugget mini-session during which we were supposed to brainstorm the implications of the deep thought.
I looked at my colleagues and said, “Deep. Real deep. So deep, it’s meaningless.”
It was the only learning nugget I could offer in response to the sagacity of the deep thought that had been expressed.
