Francis Berger's Blog, page 28
April 20, 2024
The World? The Future? Our Children? Our Grandchildren?
Many Christians and conservatives continually express deep concerns about the future -- more exactly, about the kind of world we will leave our children and grandchildren. Though I empathize with such concerns, I find most are limited in perspective and tainted by misguided notions of what the future means in spiritual terms.
Concerns about the future and future generations also tend to falsely inflate our power over the future and future generations while simultaneously deflating the immense power of the agency and freedom of future generations.
The following repost presents some of my ideas and assumptions on the topic.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I am exploring this question because I occasionally get some indirect (and direct) criticism about my apparent lack of concern about the fate of my child and Christian children in general.
The criticism is connected to salvation. The thrust of the criticism is the individual, personal choice for salvation on the part of Christian parents and how this does little to help their children who, it is assumed, will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hellish world once the parents depart from mortal life.
I suppose I could get into the problems of framing the matter in such a way or approaching the subject from the perspective of anxiety, but I won't.
Instead, I will touch upon some basic metaphysical assumptions I hold. When approached superficially, these metaphysical assumptions may provide little comfort to anxious Christian parents concerned about the well-being of their children in a world that grows darker by the day, but I hope that said anxious Christian parents will engage the assumptions I have outlined regardless.
The first assumption is that my child is God’s child first. That God knows him and loves him as much as I do – and more. God allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place because He understands that the experience offers my child the opportunity to reap immense spiritual benefits accessed only through the experience of mortal life. He would not have allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place if the opportunity for such benefits were inaccessible or impossible. Because God loves my child, He has faith that my child possesses -- or can access -- what is needed to make the choice for salvation and will work actively to guide my child toward this choice.
The second assumption centers on my understanding that mortal life in this world is inevitably and unavoidably entropic. Entropy continuously chips away at the temporary order we sometimes experience. Every person who embarks on the journey of mortal life dies. Some die young, some tragically, and some violently. Others live long, extended lives filled with vitality and vigor, but even they ultimately succumb to the forces of sickness, age, and decay. Thus, the material aliveness of individual beings in this world is temporary. Nothing “material” in this world lasts forever. Barring sudden accidents or illnesses, we will grow old, wither, and die like our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents. Our children, my child, will do the same. However, the entropic state of the world also allows for the possibility of creativity. Our worldly creations are not free from entropy, but the creative acts themselves live on eternally.
The third assumption accepts the reality of suffering in this mortal life. The continuous onslaught of disorder on temporary order ensures varying degrees of suffering, primarily physical. Yet physical suffering also induces psychological and spiritual suffering. A big part of our experience in this mortal life involves “dealing with” suffering, including my child’s suffering.
The fourth assumption concerns Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Although we inhabit an entropic world of unavoidable suffering and death, we can choose to overcome this world by believing on Jesus and following Him into everlasting life. This gift of salvation and eternal life is also available to my child who, like us, is an eternal spiritual being. I, as a parent, must accept that my child existed before he came into this world as my son. Moreover, my child’s experience in this entropic world of suffering and death is the only knowable means through which he can accept Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Without this experience, my son would likely not have the opportunity to follow Jesus into Heaven.
The fifth assumption – a fact rather than an assumption – stems from the understanding that the choice for salvation and Heaven is deeply individual and personal. As a Christian parent, I may succeed in providing my child with the best possible material and spiritual conditions in this entropic world. I may even succeed in protecting him from much of the evil infesting the world; however, in the end, nothing I do as a parent protects him completely (nor should it) or guarantees his salvation for the simple reason that his salvation is entirely up to him, in the same way that my salvation is entirely up to me. I can guide, nurture, and assist my son toward choosing salvation and Heaven, but I cannot decide for him. I cannot ensure his salvation. Nor can I force him into salvation and Heaven. I must accept that my child may – despite my best intentions and actions – reject Jesus’s offer.
I could go on, but I think the above suffice to paint a fairly clear picture of my basic assumptions concerning protecting children and ensuring their salvation. These assumptions do not entail that there is a set formula for raising children in this world and protecting them from evil, but they do provide a basis – at least for me. Having said that, all parents must do their best within the conditions of their own individual circumstances.
So, with all that in mind, what have I done to protect my child and guide him toward salvation?
In terms of externals, my wife and I took the opportunity to move away from the Anglo world and settle in a rural part of Hungary. We hoped the move would shield my son from some of the blatant evil that permeates the Anglo-West, particularly in education. However, Hungary is very far from immune from the evils that plague the West proper. Nonetheless, we believe the move has managed to spare our son from some of the most obvious harm.
It helps that nearly all of the families in the village we live in are cohesive and Christian-oriented. Divorces and “dysfunctional” families are the exceptions rather than the rule. Living in a small community of six hundred has also allowed my son to nurture relationships he may not have nurtured in larger, urban settings. The pastoral surroundings have also imbued him with a closer connection to nature, but the entropic nature of the world is still there, chipping away.
Being able to purchase a home debt-free has alleviated some of the financial stresses and struggles that sometimes taint family life.
Attending the small Roman Catholic Church in the village and the Roman Catholic school in a nearby town provides my son with a sense of community and some of the externals of Christianity, which I believe are helpful for children. Thankfully, the Catholic faith here has not been completely poisoned by leftism, but it is still very much aligned with the System, and it did lock down during the birdemic. Three years ago, my son made the personal choice to serve as an altar boy and continues to do so to this day. Though I hope my son eventually becomes a Romantic Christian, I know that Romantic Christianity is an adult choice. For now, it is enough for him to understand basic Christian beliefs about salvation and Heaven “as a child”.
When it comes to Christian “teaching” at home, my wife and I have chosen to employ a light touch. Though I sometimes speak about general Christian matters, my wife and I have intuitively decided upon a “show rather than tell” approach. When my son is older, I hope to be able to discuss Christianity with him in a more direct manner.
In terms of media, my wife and I make efforts to shield our son from noxious material, particularly online, but we do not expressly forbid him from exploring secular media, for the simple reason that we know such prohibition would likely only increase curiosity and generate rebellion.
These external choices have served us well thus far, but they have their obvious limits. There really is no “place” you can go to protect your child. Some places may be better than others, but no place is “safe”. Furthermore, there's only so much you can do to protect your child and being overprotective probably does more harm than good.
For example, our current location puts us fairly close to the raging proxy war in the east and another potential conflict simmering just to the south. As far as countries go, Hungary is still firmly within the EU and the System. It has a tragic history, mostly because of its location, and that inherent historical tragedy is still unfolding today. Many Hungarians are no better than their atheistic, leftist counterparts in the West. The culture is predominately secular and materialistic. Furthermore, even if I could provide my son with the ideal “place” to grow up, that ideal place will change, or he may decide to move away to a less ideal place one day.
The current economic environment ensures that whatever financial freedom we have enjoyed as a family is steadily being encroached upon and eroded away via inflation and various “global crises.”
Attending church and a religious school offers no protection against anything, including rejecting God. On the contrary, such experiences often breed passivity or System conformity or, sometimes, fortify the choice against God and Creation. Modeling and infusing Christian living at home likewise guarantees nothing. Avoiding or criticizing leftist media and culture also offers no safeguard against the media and culture.
And none of what I have outlined above addresses unforeseen challenges, misfortunes, and tragedies in the form of accidents, illnesses, war, economic collapse, or what have you.
When all is said and done, I view family life in this world as an ideal. It is an ideal that I must approach with the right motivations and into which I invest a great deal of effort. Naturally, I wish to protect my son from evil and guide him toward salvation. However, despite my best intentions and motivations, I know I cannot fully protect my son, nor can I ensure his salvation.
I can do my best to make the world a positive, nurturing, loving place, but I have to accept that the world often works in the opposite direction. I also have to accept that this is "the best that can be done".
Also, I can do my best to make my son aware of Jesus’s offer and encourage him to accept it, but I cannot, as a parent, make that choice for him. Neither can Jesus. The choice is his. Such is the nature of freedom. Such is the nature of his personal agency and "power."
All I can do after I have honestly done my best is have faith – faith that my son will align with Truth on his own. Faith that I will be able to help my son should I depart this world before him. Faith that my time with my son will not be restricted to our time together in this world.
There are a thousand more things I could say or should say, but I'll leave it there for now.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Note added: Though I allude to it indirectly in the post above, I make no explicit mention of the roles of consciousness, freedom, and agency, all of which are vital. I also do not go into detail about our generally overinflated notions of our power to influence the future and future generations.
Those who dismiss all or most of what I have noted above and adamantly adhere to the "power" of bringing up children in an explicitly Christian family or Christian society or any other external factor would do well to consider individuals like the one in the image below -- a rather infamous American nuclear engineer who, until recently, worked for the US government. I'm sure most are familiar with the story, so I won't go into it here. However, some may not know that said individual is the son of two Southern Baptist missionaries -- missionaries!
Something to mull over concerning the supposed power of Christian externals on the future and future generations.
Concerns about the future and future generations also tend to falsely inflate our power over the future and future generations while simultaneously deflating the immense power of the agency and freedom of future generations.
The following repost presents some of my ideas and assumptions on the topic.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
I am exploring this question because I occasionally get some indirect (and direct) criticism about my apparent lack of concern about the fate of my child and Christian children in general.
The criticism is connected to salvation. The thrust of the criticism is the individual, personal choice for salvation on the part of Christian parents and how this does little to help their children who, it is assumed, will be left to fend for themselves in an increasingly hellish world once the parents depart from mortal life.
I suppose I could get into the problems of framing the matter in such a way or approaching the subject from the perspective of anxiety, but I won't.
Instead, I will touch upon some basic metaphysical assumptions I hold. When approached superficially, these metaphysical assumptions may provide little comfort to anxious Christian parents concerned about the well-being of their children in a world that grows darker by the day, but I hope that said anxious Christian parents will engage the assumptions I have outlined regardless.
The first assumption is that my child is God’s child first. That God knows him and loves him as much as I do – and more. God allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place because He understands that the experience offers my child the opportunity to reap immense spiritual benefits accessed only through the experience of mortal life. He would not have allowed my child to be born into this world in this time and place if the opportunity for such benefits were inaccessible or impossible. Because God loves my child, He has faith that my child possesses -- or can access -- what is needed to make the choice for salvation and will work actively to guide my child toward this choice.
The second assumption centers on my understanding that mortal life in this world is inevitably and unavoidably entropic. Entropy continuously chips away at the temporary order we sometimes experience. Every person who embarks on the journey of mortal life dies. Some die young, some tragically, and some violently. Others live long, extended lives filled with vitality and vigor, but even they ultimately succumb to the forces of sickness, age, and decay. Thus, the material aliveness of individual beings in this world is temporary. Nothing “material” in this world lasts forever. Barring sudden accidents or illnesses, we will grow old, wither, and die like our great-grandparents, grandparents, and parents. Our children, my child, will do the same. However, the entropic state of the world also allows for the possibility of creativity. Our worldly creations are not free from entropy, but the creative acts themselves live on eternally.
The third assumption accepts the reality of suffering in this mortal life. The continuous onslaught of disorder on temporary order ensures varying degrees of suffering, primarily physical. Yet physical suffering also induces psychological and spiritual suffering. A big part of our experience in this mortal life involves “dealing with” suffering, including my child’s suffering.
The fourth assumption concerns Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Although we inhabit an entropic world of unavoidable suffering and death, we can choose to overcome this world by believing on Jesus and following Him into everlasting life. This gift of salvation and eternal life is also available to my child who, like us, is an eternal spiritual being. I, as a parent, must accept that my child existed before he came into this world as my son. Moreover, my child’s experience in this entropic world of suffering and death is the only knowable means through which he can accept Jesus’s gift of salvation and eternal life. Without this experience, my son would likely not have the opportunity to follow Jesus into Heaven.
The fifth assumption – a fact rather than an assumption – stems from the understanding that the choice for salvation and Heaven is deeply individual and personal. As a Christian parent, I may succeed in providing my child with the best possible material and spiritual conditions in this entropic world. I may even succeed in protecting him from much of the evil infesting the world; however, in the end, nothing I do as a parent protects him completely (nor should it) or guarantees his salvation for the simple reason that his salvation is entirely up to him, in the same way that my salvation is entirely up to me. I can guide, nurture, and assist my son toward choosing salvation and Heaven, but I cannot decide for him. I cannot ensure his salvation. Nor can I force him into salvation and Heaven. I must accept that my child may – despite my best intentions and actions – reject Jesus’s offer.
I could go on, but I think the above suffice to paint a fairly clear picture of my basic assumptions concerning protecting children and ensuring their salvation. These assumptions do not entail that there is a set formula for raising children in this world and protecting them from evil, but they do provide a basis – at least for me. Having said that, all parents must do their best within the conditions of their own individual circumstances.
So, with all that in mind, what have I done to protect my child and guide him toward salvation?
In terms of externals, my wife and I took the opportunity to move away from the Anglo world and settle in a rural part of Hungary. We hoped the move would shield my son from some of the blatant evil that permeates the Anglo-West, particularly in education. However, Hungary is very far from immune from the evils that plague the West proper. Nonetheless, we believe the move has managed to spare our son from some of the most obvious harm.
It helps that nearly all of the families in the village we live in are cohesive and Christian-oriented. Divorces and “dysfunctional” families are the exceptions rather than the rule. Living in a small community of six hundred has also allowed my son to nurture relationships he may not have nurtured in larger, urban settings. The pastoral surroundings have also imbued him with a closer connection to nature, but the entropic nature of the world is still there, chipping away.
Being able to purchase a home debt-free has alleviated some of the financial stresses and struggles that sometimes taint family life.
Attending the small Roman Catholic Church in the village and the Roman Catholic school in a nearby town provides my son with a sense of community and some of the externals of Christianity, which I believe are helpful for children. Thankfully, the Catholic faith here has not been completely poisoned by leftism, but it is still very much aligned with the System, and it did lock down during the birdemic. Three years ago, my son made the personal choice to serve as an altar boy and continues to do so to this day. Though I hope my son eventually becomes a Romantic Christian, I know that Romantic Christianity is an adult choice. For now, it is enough for him to understand basic Christian beliefs about salvation and Heaven “as a child”.
When it comes to Christian “teaching” at home, my wife and I have chosen to employ a light touch. Though I sometimes speak about general Christian matters, my wife and I have intuitively decided upon a “show rather than tell” approach. When my son is older, I hope to be able to discuss Christianity with him in a more direct manner.
In terms of media, my wife and I make efforts to shield our son from noxious material, particularly online, but we do not expressly forbid him from exploring secular media, for the simple reason that we know such prohibition would likely only increase curiosity and generate rebellion.
These external choices have served us well thus far, but they have their obvious limits. There really is no “place” you can go to protect your child. Some places may be better than others, but no place is “safe”. Furthermore, there's only so much you can do to protect your child and being overprotective probably does more harm than good.
For example, our current location puts us fairly close to the raging proxy war in the east and another potential conflict simmering just to the south. As far as countries go, Hungary is still firmly within the EU and the System. It has a tragic history, mostly because of its location, and that inherent historical tragedy is still unfolding today. Many Hungarians are no better than their atheistic, leftist counterparts in the West. The culture is predominately secular and materialistic. Furthermore, even if I could provide my son with the ideal “place” to grow up, that ideal place will change, or he may decide to move away to a less ideal place one day.
The current economic environment ensures that whatever financial freedom we have enjoyed as a family is steadily being encroached upon and eroded away via inflation and various “global crises.”
Attending church and a religious school offers no protection against anything, including rejecting God. On the contrary, such experiences often breed passivity or System conformity or, sometimes, fortify the choice against God and Creation. Modeling and infusing Christian living at home likewise guarantees nothing. Avoiding or criticizing leftist media and culture also offers no safeguard against the media and culture.
And none of what I have outlined above addresses unforeseen challenges, misfortunes, and tragedies in the form of accidents, illnesses, war, economic collapse, or what have you.
When all is said and done, I view family life in this world as an ideal. It is an ideal that I must approach with the right motivations and into which I invest a great deal of effort. Naturally, I wish to protect my son from evil and guide him toward salvation. However, despite my best intentions and motivations, I know I cannot fully protect my son, nor can I ensure his salvation.
I can do my best to make the world a positive, nurturing, loving place, but I have to accept that the world often works in the opposite direction. I also have to accept that this is "the best that can be done".
Also, I can do my best to make my son aware of Jesus’s offer and encourage him to accept it, but I cannot, as a parent, make that choice for him. Neither can Jesus. The choice is his. Such is the nature of freedom. Such is the nature of his personal agency and "power."
All I can do after I have honestly done my best is have faith – faith that my son will align with Truth on his own. Faith that I will be able to help my son should I depart this world before him. Faith that my time with my son will not be restricted to our time together in this world.
There are a thousand more things I could say or should say, but I'll leave it there for now.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Note added: Though I allude to it indirectly in the post above, I make no explicit mention of the roles of consciousness, freedom, and agency, all of which are vital. I also do not go into detail about our generally overinflated notions of our power to influence the future and future generations.
Those who dismiss all or most of what I have noted above and adamantly adhere to the "power" of bringing up children in an explicitly Christian family or Christian society or any other external factor would do well to consider individuals like the one in the image below -- a rather infamous American nuclear engineer who, until recently, worked for the US government. I'm sure most are familiar with the story, so I won't go into it here. However, some may not know that said individual is the son of two Southern Baptist missionaries -- missionaries!
Something to mull over concerning the supposed power of Christian externals on the future and future generations.
April 17, 2024
The (Ir)Relevance of Post-Resurrected Life
Most of my interactions with most people amount to little more than System interactions. People everywhere relate to each other only through the System.
And this is not limited to interpersonal relationships between humans. It extends to all Creation. I struggle to remember the last time I heard someone speak about nature or the weather without referring to the climate crisis or environmentalism. Virtually all organized, institutional Christianity has reduced itself to broadcasting System-dictated agenda items, issues, and talking points.
The System only lives between us and Creation because we allow it to. No, more than that. We actively desire that the System live between us and Creation.
Relationships in Creation require free, autonomous, thinking agents motivated by and capable of love and creativity. Only such agents can know Creation directly and form knowing relationships in Creation.
Very few people appear interested in forming relationships in Creation because most people seem utterly uninterested in freedom, autonomy, and thinking, to say nothing of love and creativity. It’s far easier to permit the System to live within them and between us.
As I reflected upon these thoughts, it struck me that the most glaring example of the System living within and between people is the denial, rejection, or relegation of Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life.
Within so-called Christian thinking, this manifests most pronouncedly in all ideas and arguments that elevate this-worldly agenda items, issues, and talking points above Jesus’ offer of Heaven, thereby downgrading the afterlife to barely more than afterthought, to something tacked on at the end of mortal life, but after — and only after — individuals have dedicated their mortal lives to the far more pressing and urgent matter of improving the world, bolstering material and societal conditions, and fixing the System.
The significance and meaning of mortal life for Christians should depend on the reality of accepting Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life, entailing that the significance and the meaning of mortal life must be permeated and illuminated by a guiding belief and faith in Heaven. Without that, the meaning and significance of mortal life become distorted and misinterpreted.
Yet many Christians seem to believe the opposite — that the meaning and significance of post-resurrected life are entirely contingent upon our belief and faith in systems in mortal life, whatever system that system happens to be.
Thus, Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life does little more than distort the significance and meaning of mortal life and its systems, ultimately causing people to misinterpret what mortal life is actually all about.
Within this paradigm, Heaven does little more than obscure and obstruct the relevance of pre-resurrection, this-worldly “reality” by getting in the way of all the vital System tasks and goals we need to dedicate our mortal lives to accomplishing and securing.
The known, tangible, and practical concerns of mortal life are highly relevant, but only when Jesus' offer of post-resurrected life becomes primary.
A world in which mortal life and its systems are primary and Heaven secondary is a world in which the System lives between us and Creation.
And this is not limited to interpersonal relationships between humans. It extends to all Creation. I struggle to remember the last time I heard someone speak about nature or the weather without referring to the climate crisis or environmentalism. Virtually all organized, institutional Christianity has reduced itself to broadcasting System-dictated agenda items, issues, and talking points.
The System only lives between us and Creation because we allow it to. No, more than that. We actively desire that the System live between us and Creation.
Relationships in Creation require free, autonomous, thinking agents motivated by and capable of love and creativity. Only such agents can know Creation directly and form knowing relationships in Creation.
Very few people appear interested in forming relationships in Creation because most people seem utterly uninterested in freedom, autonomy, and thinking, to say nothing of love and creativity. It’s far easier to permit the System to live within them and between us.
As I reflected upon these thoughts, it struck me that the most glaring example of the System living within and between people is the denial, rejection, or relegation of Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life.
Within so-called Christian thinking, this manifests most pronouncedly in all ideas and arguments that elevate this-worldly agenda items, issues, and talking points above Jesus’ offer of Heaven, thereby downgrading the afterlife to barely more than afterthought, to something tacked on at the end of mortal life, but after — and only after — individuals have dedicated their mortal lives to the far more pressing and urgent matter of improving the world, bolstering material and societal conditions, and fixing the System.
The significance and meaning of mortal life for Christians should depend on the reality of accepting Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life, entailing that the significance and the meaning of mortal life must be permeated and illuminated by a guiding belief and faith in Heaven. Without that, the meaning and significance of mortal life become distorted and misinterpreted.
Yet many Christians seem to believe the opposite — that the meaning and significance of post-resurrected life are entirely contingent upon our belief and faith in systems in mortal life, whatever system that system happens to be.
Thus, Jesus’ offer of post-resurrected life does little more than distort the significance and meaning of mortal life and its systems, ultimately causing people to misinterpret what mortal life is actually all about.
Within this paradigm, Heaven does little more than obscure and obstruct the relevance of pre-resurrection, this-worldly “reality” by getting in the way of all the vital System tasks and goals we need to dedicate our mortal lives to accomplishing and securing.
The known, tangible, and practical concerns of mortal life are highly relevant, but only when Jesus' offer of post-resurrected life becomes primary.
A world in which mortal life and its systems are primary and Heaven secondary is a world in which the System lives between us and Creation.
April 16, 2024
Self Honesty
Acknowledge debt slavery and recognize that that underpins 99.8% of this-worldly thoughts and actions.
It probably wouldn't hurt to also admit that most metaphysical assumptions -- if they can be called that -- only serve to justify such shallow, this-worldly servility.
It probably wouldn't hurt to also admit that most metaphysical assumptions -- if they can be called that -- only serve to justify such shallow, this-worldly servility.
First Cuckoo Call
Note to self more than anything -- I heard the first cuckoo call of the spring three days ago, April 14, which aligns with previous years, give or take a day.
Comments Turned Off For A While
Commenting on this blog will be turned off for a while.
April 15, 2024
Residual Unresolved Positivism is a Problem. Blatant Unchallenged Positivism is a Catastrophe.
Owen Barfield coined the term Residual Unresolved Positivism (R.U.P) as a way to describe what "occurs when positivism — 'the position that there is an unbridgeable gulf between mental experience . . . and the objective world, the outside world of nature’ — 'remains in fact in a man's mind even though he may have in philosophical theory rejected or resolved it’. Those who exhibit R.U.P. "do not really believe that man's consciousness ever was a part of nature's any more than it is now.’”
“I can philosophize myself free from philosophical materialism quite easily; and so, I dare say, can you. . . ,” Barfield remarks in History, Guilt, and Habit, but that does not mean we are free of its influence:
after we have done the philosophizing and gone back to ordinary life, the materialism is still there in our very instruments of thoughts, and indeed of perception: it signifies that it is there in the meanings of the words we speak and think with, and notably so in the commonest words of all--words like “thing,” “life,” “man,” “fact,” “think”, “perceive," and so on. It is not merely a habit but an ingrained habit. It is even what we call “common sense.”
Barfield’s main point is that positivism/materialism is deeply ingrained in modern man’s consciousness, so deeply that even the most spiritually motivated and inspired thinkers remain within its clutches, often without their conscious knowledge.
Dr. Charlton, who has addressed the theme repeatedly, defines R.U.P in the following way:
Owen Barfield invented the term Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) to refer to a Positivist attitude which persisted unconsciously, unknown, and against the will of the person who held to it.
Positivism is the (usually implicit) belief system that all valid knowledge comes via the senses (and not, for example, from revelation or imagination) - it is sometimes called Scientism and is the metaphysics which is mainstream in modernity - although usually only articulated by scientists with a bent for philosophy.
Residual Unresolved Positivism is definitely a problem, but there is an even bigger problem plaguing contemporary Western man, and that problem is Blatant Unchallenged Positivism or B.U.P.
Unlike R.U.P., there is nothing residual, unconscious, or unknown in B.U.P.
Blatant Unchallenged Positivism is positivism that is consciously embraced and promoted with the full support of an active will that regards all knowledge not coming via the senses as subordinate or, more frequently, utterly invalid.
Blatant Unchallenged Positivism is the default setting for most leftists and all materialists. However, it also appears to be the preferred perspective of many who refer to themselves as Christian, which, needless to say, is a catastrophe.
I will develop the theme further in the next post.
Note added: It is probably more accurate to say that B.U.P. used to be the default setting for most conventional leftists and materialists, but I would argue that most contemporary leftists and materialists have abandoned science, empiricism, and common sense and are actually in the throes of Blatant Unchallenged Whatever B.U.W., leaving B.U.P. to so-called Christians enamored by "reality", empiricism, facts, science, and "common sense".
“I can philosophize myself free from philosophical materialism quite easily; and so, I dare say, can you. . . ,” Barfield remarks in History, Guilt, and Habit, but that does not mean we are free of its influence:
after we have done the philosophizing and gone back to ordinary life, the materialism is still there in our very instruments of thoughts, and indeed of perception: it signifies that it is there in the meanings of the words we speak and think with, and notably so in the commonest words of all--words like “thing,” “life,” “man,” “fact,” “think”, “perceive," and so on. It is not merely a habit but an ingrained habit. It is even what we call “common sense.”
Barfield’s main point is that positivism/materialism is deeply ingrained in modern man’s consciousness, so deeply that even the most spiritually motivated and inspired thinkers remain within its clutches, often without their conscious knowledge.
Dr. Charlton, who has addressed the theme repeatedly, defines R.U.P in the following way:
Owen Barfield invented the term Residual Unresolved Positivism (RUP) to refer to a Positivist attitude which persisted unconsciously, unknown, and against the will of the person who held to it.
Positivism is the (usually implicit) belief system that all valid knowledge comes via the senses (and not, for example, from revelation or imagination) - it is sometimes called Scientism and is the metaphysics which is mainstream in modernity - although usually only articulated by scientists with a bent for philosophy.
Residual Unresolved Positivism is definitely a problem, but there is an even bigger problem plaguing contemporary Western man, and that problem is Blatant Unchallenged Positivism or B.U.P.
Unlike R.U.P., there is nothing residual, unconscious, or unknown in B.U.P.
Blatant Unchallenged Positivism is positivism that is consciously embraced and promoted with the full support of an active will that regards all knowledge not coming via the senses as subordinate or, more frequently, utterly invalid.
Blatant Unchallenged Positivism is the default setting for most leftists and all materialists. However, it also appears to be the preferred perspective of many who refer to themselves as Christian, which, needless to say, is a catastrophe.
I will develop the theme further in the next post.
Note added: It is probably more accurate to say that B.U.P. used to be the default setting for most conventional leftists and materialists, but I would argue that most contemporary leftists and materialists have abandoned science, empiricism, and common sense and are actually in the throes of Blatant Unchallenged Whatever B.U.W., leaving B.U.P. to so-called Christians enamored by "reality", empiricism, facts, science, and "common sense".
April 13, 2024
"Our Side" Politicians Steal Punk Imagery
I'm perpetually thankful for all the politicians "on our" side doing, well, whatever they do to protect us from the evil leftists and woke-sters.
I'm particularly grateful when they come up with cutting-edge, original memes in their political communications, which we pay for through the exorbitant and unjustifiable taxes they extort from us.
Case in point, the Hungarian ruling party's decision to steal the Dead Kennedys' image of dollar signs spray-painted on white shirts and black ties and apply it to the corrupt leftists that the dreaded "Western elites" have purchased "by the kilo."
Talk about meme magic!
The original 
The not-so original Gosh darn it, those Christian-nationalist-democrat-whatevers have my vote. At the end of the day, I care about democracy -- I really do -- and if I have to be locked down again or annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, then I want to make sure that a Christian-nationalist-democrat-whatever-government locks me down or helps annhilate me nuclearly.
The Hungarian ruling party has vowed to extend the punk theme in the near future by superimposing Ursula Van Der Leyen's face onto the the Sex Pistols' iconic "God Save the Queen" image.
I'm sure it will be epic.
I'm particularly grateful when they come up with cutting-edge, original memes in their political communications, which we pay for through the exorbitant and unjustifiable taxes they extort from us.
Case in point, the Hungarian ruling party's decision to steal the Dead Kennedys' image of dollar signs spray-painted on white shirts and black ties and apply it to the corrupt leftists that the dreaded "Western elites" have purchased "by the kilo."
Talk about meme magic!
The original The not-so original Gosh darn it, those Christian-nationalist-democrat-whatevers have my vote. At the end of the day, I care about democracy -- I really do -- and if I have to be locked down again or annihilated in a nuclear holocaust, then I want to make sure that a Christian-nationalist-democrat-whatever-government locks me down or helps annhilate me nuclearly. The Hungarian ruling party has vowed to extend the punk theme in the near future by superimposing Ursula Van Der Leyen's face onto the the Sex Pistols' iconic "God Save the Queen" image.
I'm sure it will be epic.
What is the Destiny in Demography is Destiny?
Some form of society is, of course, necessary. It doesn’t hurt that society is also something we all have in common, something we all participate into some greater or lesser degree, and something we all have opinions about regardless of personal assumptions. All this and more helps explain why nearly all bloggers — yours truly included — focus on social themes and issues at least some of the time.
Having said that, society can also be a demonic snare, particularly for Christians. Societal concerns are important, but for Christians, they should not be primary — especially in light of what transpired four years ago and everything that has happened since. When Christians make society their overarching concern now, they slip away from Christianity and enter the realm of what might be called Societianity with its incessant and obsessive focus on “communities.”
It bears keeping in mind that our current and often obsessive focus on all things social stems mostly from, Auguste Comte, the father of Positivism, and others of his ilk. Some say Comte even coined the term sociology, which is relevant when you consider how much time bloggers spend studying and commenting on society.
I am not implying that people did not think about, study, or write about society before Auguste Comte; however, when they did, they did so from assumptions that included belief in religion, divinity, and the supernatural. The same is not true of Comte and most so-called sociologists of the past two or three centuries.
Why is this important? For the simple reason that a great deal of secular — nay, explicitly anti-God, anti-Creation — sociological thinking, tenets, and assumptions permeate contemporary Christian social commentary on human social behavior, organization, relationships, power structures, and so forth.
Such permeations are most explicit in so-called Christian approaches that regard human society as the most important and pressing thing in the world, with the establishment and maintenance of an exclusively Christian society as the highest calling to which a Christian can aspire in mortal life.
Justifications for the “society uber alles” approach in contemporary Christianity are based primarily on ideas like demography is destiny. All quite sound and logical, but it is worth noting that Auguste Comte is credited with the demography is destiny phrase. Even if he didn’t utter it, you can rest assured that someone with assumptions similar to his did.
So, if or when Christians feel motivated to discuss the effects of declining, sub-fertile populations and mass migration on once predominately Christian nations, they must do so from assumptions that rise above Comte’s materialism when he coined the term.
Sadly, the assumptions Christians communicate when discussing demography or any other society-related issue rarely rise above such basic positivist assumptions.
Having said that, society can also be a demonic snare, particularly for Christians. Societal concerns are important, but for Christians, they should not be primary — especially in light of what transpired four years ago and everything that has happened since. When Christians make society their overarching concern now, they slip away from Christianity and enter the realm of what might be called Societianity with its incessant and obsessive focus on “communities.”
It bears keeping in mind that our current and often obsessive focus on all things social stems mostly from, Auguste Comte, the father of Positivism, and others of his ilk. Some say Comte even coined the term sociology, which is relevant when you consider how much time bloggers spend studying and commenting on society.
I am not implying that people did not think about, study, or write about society before Auguste Comte; however, when they did, they did so from assumptions that included belief in religion, divinity, and the supernatural. The same is not true of Comte and most so-called sociologists of the past two or three centuries.
Why is this important? For the simple reason that a great deal of secular — nay, explicitly anti-God, anti-Creation — sociological thinking, tenets, and assumptions permeate contemporary Christian social commentary on human social behavior, organization, relationships, power structures, and so forth.
Such permeations are most explicit in so-called Christian approaches that regard human society as the most important and pressing thing in the world, with the establishment and maintenance of an exclusively Christian society as the highest calling to which a Christian can aspire in mortal life.
Justifications for the “society uber alles” approach in contemporary Christianity are based primarily on ideas like demography is destiny. All quite sound and logical, but it is worth noting that Auguste Comte is credited with the demography is destiny phrase. Even if he didn’t utter it, you can rest assured that someone with assumptions similar to his did.
So, if or when Christians feel motivated to discuss the effects of declining, sub-fertile populations and mass migration on once predominately Christian nations, they must do so from assumptions that rise above Comte’s materialism when he coined the term.
Sadly, the assumptions Christians communicate when discussing demography or any other society-related issue rarely rise above such basic positivist assumptions.
April 9, 2024
Placing the Nothing and Non-Existence of the Other Over One's Own Nothing and Non-Exsistence
Altruism firmly maintains positive connotations in the minds of most. The notion of putting the interests, well-being, and happiness of others above one’s self-interest, well-being, and happiness — no more than that, the notion of sacrificing one’s interests, well-being, and happiness to benefit others with no expectation of any reciprocity, benefit, or compensation for oneself — continues to be regarded as an extremely high moral/ethical value.
Within this framework, altruism — the persistent act of putting the welfare of others above oneself — becomes a moral obligation. Auguste Comte, who coined the term, certainly believed that. He rejected rights — divine or otherwise — as absurd and immoral and instead trumpeted duties and obligations based on functions, for all and toward all. In Comte’s thinking, human beings are morally obligated to put everyone above themselves.
Again, this likely continues to strike most modern people as highly noble because they confuse altruism with loyalty or concern for the common good or because they delight in the personal gratification aspect of placing others above themselves — the intrinsic reward of the ego boost that privately or socially confirms their statuses as “good” and “caring” people.
Yet Comte’s altruism has nothing to do with loyalty or the common good as motivators. On the contrary, Comte’s “true” altruism disregards all concerns based on social relationships for the simple reason that such relationships taint and diminish the purity of the altruistic urge for all and toward all.
The nearly two centuries that have passed since Comte’s death have revealed true altruism as an absurd abstraction, at least at the societal level, which, for Comte, was the only level that existed or mattered.
What parades around as altruism today at the societal level is mostly poisonous egoism or mass psychological manipulations aimed at making people believe that they are placing themselves above others without having to go through the inconvenience of actually doing so. The altruism that contaminates most Christian altruism — an oxymoron par excellence — is of the same quality and does no better.
Put simply, all forms of social altruism today are grossly misguided, insincere, and fraudulent.
However, true altruism does appear to exist, but it exists in the very thing Comte denied as real — the spirit.
True altruism is the moral obligation of denying the Self for the benefit of the Other. It failed to materialize in Reality because the True Self or Primal Self rejects the moral obligation to deny itself for the sake of the Other outright on spiritual grounds.
Our True or Primal Selves understand that any meaning or purpose we hope to gain from mortal life depends entirely on relationships between and among Beings, that is, on relationships between True Selves, in as much as such relationships are possible in mortal life. Such relationships depend entirely on the recognition, nurturing, and actuation of one’s Primal Self and other Selves, which is the very life force of Creation.
The Primal Self feels no obligation toward and cannot form a relationship with an abstract Other because it is akin to trying to relate to a void, an utter vacuum. It also experiences no impetus to lose “itself” to such a void.
False selves, on the other hand, find it easier to relate to the void of the Other, primarily because it increases the egoisms within false selves. Comte’s true altruism is perpetually doomed to failure because it is predicated on a true and noble non-spiritual self that does not exist.
What exists instead is a plethora of false selves that are more than willing to utilize the altruistic impulse for aims that ultimately run contrary to Comte’s grand visions of a progressive, selfless society in which individuals feel authentically morally obligated to perform altruistic duties without any regard for relationships or reciprocity.
The fraudulence of all altruism lies in the fact that the sacrificing selves are all false. None of them sacrifice anything even remotely close to Comte’s idea of true altruism.
The only area where Comte’s true altruism appears to have achieved any modicum of success is at the level of the individual True Self and its relationships with other Beings. However, this is anything but a “positive” development (pun very much intended).
Here’s my thinking — on the one hand, altruism is detrimental to the True Self because it tends to activate and amplify false selves, thereby driving the True Self further from consciousness. On the other hand, altruism’s insistence that we place the Other above the Self forces us away from reality into abstraction.
The false selves that fan altruism may be false, but false is not the same as non-existent. Thus, most “effective” altruism boils to false selves insincerely placing other false selves above themselves. However, even our false selves abhor the abstract void that is the Other, but they tolerate it if it can provide egoistic benefits.
The only way an individual can establish and maintain contact with the Other is if they internalize the Other within themselves. Comte’s true altruism does not boil down to the matter of selves placing the Other above themselves — it exists in the non-relationship of Others, of one’s internalized abstract Other contacting an externalized abstract Other. Put another way, Comte’s true altruism is the non-relationships of non-existent entities.
The internal Other is not just another false self — it is the denial of all selves, especially the True Self. The same applies to external Other.
The Other within a person insists upon the same sacrifices the false selves demand when it comes to altruism — pleasure, time, life quality, money, survival, reproduction — but unlike the false selves, the Other will forgo all temptations toward compensation or reciprocity. On top of that, the Other within a person knows the sacrifice cannot and will not offer any real benefit to any other "Others".
The highest moral obligation today? A void sacrificing itself for a void.
The principle of concern for the nothing and non-existence of the Other and placing that above one’s own Other, one’s own nothing and non-existence, all for the benefit of nothing and non-existence.
Note: This post was stimulated by Dr. Charlton's recent series of posts on the potential for mass suicide.
Within this framework, altruism — the persistent act of putting the welfare of others above oneself — becomes a moral obligation. Auguste Comte, who coined the term, certainly believed that. He rejected rights — divine or otherwise — as absurd and immoral and instead trumpeted duties and obligations based on functions, for all and toward all. In Comte’s thinking, human beings are morally obligated to put everyone above themselves.
Again, this likely continues to strike most modern people as highly noble because they confuse altruism with loyalty or concern for the common good or because they delight in the personal gratification aspect of placing others above themselves — the intrinsic reward of the ego boost that privately or socially confirms their statuses as “good” and “caring” people.
Yet Comte’s altruism has nothing to do with loyalty or the common good as motivators. On the contrary, Comte’s “true” altruism disregards all concerns based on social relationships for the simple reason that such relationships taint and diminish the purity of the altruistic urge for all and toward all.
The nearly two centuries that have passed since Comte’s death have revealed true altruism as an absurd abstraction, at least at the societal level, which, for Comte, was the only level that existed or mattered.
What parades around as altruism today at the societal level is mostly poisonous egoism or mass psychological manipulations aimed at making people believe that they are placing themselves above others without having to go through the inconvenience of actually doing so. The altruism that contaminates most Christian altruism — an oxymoron par excellence — is of the same quality and does no better.
Put simply, all forms of social altruism today are grossly misguided, insincere, and fraudulent.
However, true altruism does appear to exist, but it exists in the very thing Comte denied as real — the spirit.
True altruism is the moral obligation of denying the Self for the benefit of the Other. It failed to materialize in Reality because the True Self or Primal Self rejects the moral obligation to deny itself for the sake of the Other outright on spiritual grounds.
Our True or Primal Selves understand that any meaning or purpose we hope to gain from mortal life depends entirely on relationships between and among Beings, that is, on relationships between True Selves, in as much as such relationships are possible in mortal life. Such relationships depend entirely on the recognition, nurturing, and actuation of one’s Primal Self and other Selves, which is the very life force of Creation.
The Primal Self feels no obligation toward and cannot form a relationship with an abstract Other because it is akin to trying to relate to a void, an utter vacuum. It also experiences no impetus to lose “itself” to such a void.
False selves, on the other hand, find it easier to relate to the void of the Other, primarily because it increases the egoisms within false selves. Comte’s true altruism is perpetually doomed to failure because it is predicated on a true and noble non-spiritual self that does not exist.
What exists instead is a plethora of false selves that are more than willing to utilize the altruistic impulse for aims that ultimately run contrary to Comte’s grand visions of a progressive, selfless society in which individuals feel authentically morally obligated to perform altruistic duties without any regard for relationships or reciprocity.
The fraudulence of all altruism lies in the fact that the sacrificing selves are all false. None of them sacrifice anything even remotely close to Comte’s idea of true altruism.
The only area where Comte’s true altruism appears to have achieved any modicum of success is at the level of the individual True Self and its relationships with other Beings. However, this is anything but a “positive” development (pun very much intended).
Here’s my thinking — on the one hand, altruism is detrimental to the True Self because it tends to activate and amplify false selves, thereby driving the True Self further from consciousness. On the other hand, altruism’s insistence that we place the Other above the Self forces us away from reality into abstraction.
The false selves that fan altruism may be false, but false is not the same as non-existent. Thus, most “effective” altruism boils to false selves insincerely placing other false selves above themselves. However, even our false selves abhor the abstract void that is the Other, but they tolerate it if it can provide egoistic benefits.
The only way an individual can establish and maintain contact with the Other is if they internalize the Other within themselves. Comte’s true altruism does not boil down to the matter of selves placing the Other above themselves — it exists in the non-relationship of Others, of one’s internalized abstract Other contacting an externalized abstract Other. Put another way, Comte’s true altruism is the non-relationships of non-existent entities.
The internal Other is not just another false self — it is the denial of all selves, especially the True Self. The same applies to external Other.
The Other within a person insists upon the same sacrifices the false selves demand when it comes to altruism — pleasure, time, life quality, money, survival, reproduction — but unlike the false selves, the Other will forgo all temptations toward compensation or reciprocity. On top of that, the Other within a person knows the sacrifice cannot and will not offer any real benefit to any other "Others".
The highest moral obligation today? A void sacrificing itself for a void.
The principle of concern for the nothing and non-existence of the Other and placing that above one’s own Other, one’s own nothing and non-existence, all for the benefit of nothing and non-existence.
Note: This post was stimulated by Dr. Charlton's recent series of posts on the potential for mass suicide.
April 8, 2024
Berdyaev Site Returns
Some great news via email today!
Friends of Nicholas Berdyaev and the Late Fr. Stephen Janos,
We’re happy to announce that the newly-restored and expanded website, www.nicholasberdyaev.com, is finally up and running.
Thank you for your patience as we have worked to reassemble Fr. Stephen Janos' original site since its expropriation by an international gambling consortium. Plus, we have taken the opportunity to expand the offerings to include more biographies, bibliographies, photo galleries, links to texts and significantly reformatted articles.
Future website elements will include notices about new Berdyaev-related dissertations, articles, books and events, as well as feature stories about the work of leading scholars such as yourself.
As with any endeavor of this scope, certainly there are errors of omission and commission. If, as you browse the site you discover erratum, please drop us a note. And if you’re so inclined, include a note or quote recommending the site that we may use in upcoming announcements and press.
Best regards,
Andrew Janos, Board Chair
Sofia Androsenko (Софья Андросенко), Board Vice-Chair and Scholar-in-Residence
Tom Willett, Board Secretary
Many thanks to everyone who helped bring the site back online.
Friends of Nicholas Berdyaev and the Late Fr. Stephen Janos,
We’re happy to announce that the newly-restored and expanded website, www.nicholasberdyaev.com, is finally up and running.
Thank you for your patience as we have worked to reassemble Fr. Stephen Janos' original site since its expropriation by an international gambling consortium. Plus, we have taken the opportunity to expand the offerings to include more biographies, bibliographies, photo galleries, links to texts and significantly reformatted articles.
Future website elements will include notices about new Berdyaev-related dissertations, articles, books and events, as well as feature stories about the work of leading scholars such as yourself.
As with any endeavor of this scope, certainly there are errors of omission and commission. If, as you browse the site you discover erratum, please drop us a note. And if you’re so inclined, include a note or quote recommending the site that we may use in upcoming announcements and press.
Best regards,
Andrew Janos, Board Chair
Sofia Androsenko (Софья Андросенко), Board Vice-Chair and Scholar-in-Residence
Tom Willett, Board Secretary
Many thanks to everyone who helped bring the site back online.
