Francis Berger's Blog, page 35
January 10, 2024
Is High-Tech AI Just Repackaged Low-Tech ai?
The ever-increasing interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) started me thinking about conventional low-tech forms of artificial intelligence (ai). What are low-tech forms of ai? Well, things like plagiarism, fake research, and parroting all qualify as low-tech artificial intelligence.
Claiming someone else’s ideas and work as your own is prevalent in the System. Plagiarism can make you appear far more intelligent than you actually may be. If your unethical behavior is tolerated or remains undiscovered, you can utilize this low-tech artificial intelligence to raise your status or further your career. Don't believe me? Ask a System apparatchik like an ivy-league university president.
Fake research — providing researchers with predetermined, desired results and findings and then asking them to develop research that supports such predetermined findings — is another example of low-tech System artificial intelligence.
And then there is parroting, which Dr. Charlton describes as a modern person's ability “to interact on subjects far beyond his comprehension by algorithmically implementing a predetermined set of rules — recognizing inputs from a chart (whether external or internalized), then matching and selecting 'appropriate' predetermined responses, then ordering and setting them out as a kind of mosaic of 'points.'"
The System is rife with low-tech ai. Perhaps it would not be far from the truth to say that the System has run on low-tech ai for decades.
Is it any wonder then that the System is now pushing high-tech AI?
And is it simply a coincidence that high-tech, ooh-la-la AI seems like little more than a technological repackaging of the same low-tech ai forms the System has relied on for decades — those low-tech forms, once again being plagiarism, fake research, and parroting?
What do I think of the high-tech AI the System is currently pushing?
Well, it strikes me as a master plagiarizer, adept fake researcher, and uber-proficient parrot.
Claiming someone else’s ideas and work as your own is prevalent in the System. Plagiarism can make you appear far more intelligent than you actually may be. If your unethical behavior is tolerated or remains undiscovered, you can utilize this low-tech artificial intelligence to raise your status or further your career. Don't believe me? Ask a System apparatchik like an ivy-league university president.
Fake research — providing researchers with predetermined, desired results and findings and then asking them to develop research that supports such predetermined findings — is another example of low-tech System artificial intelligence.
And then there is parroting, which Dr. Charlton describes as a modern person's ability “to interact on subjects far beyond his comprehension by algorithmically implementing a predetermined set of rules — recognizing inputs from a chart (whether external or internalized), then matching and selecting 'appropriate' predetermined responses, then ordering and setting them out as a kind of mosaic of 'points.'"
The System is rife with low-tech ai. Perhaps it would not be far from the truth to say that the System has run on low-tech ai for decades.
Is it any wonder then that the System is now pushing high-tech AI?
And is it simply a coincidence that high-tech, ooh-la-la AI seems like little more than a technological repackaging of the same low-tech ai forms the System has relied on for decades — those low-tech forms, once again being plagiarism, fake research, and parroting?
What do I think of the high-tech AI the System is currently pushing?
Well, it strikes me as a master plagiarizer, adept fake researcher, and uber-proficient parrot.
January 9, 2024
A Far More Compelling Theodicy (That Still Falls Short)
How can you resolve the problem of evil that emerges when God is assumed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent?
Short answer — you can’t.
Well, you can, but that requires mindbending scholastic and philosophical acrobatics. However, even after you painstakingly dot all the i’s and cross every single t, you are inevitably left with an inherently unsatisfying and, I dare say, disappointing argument.
Of course, most orthodox thinkers find such acrobatic resolutions completely satisfactory, and that’s fine.
I mean, if the assumption of Omnigod is non-negotiable, then philosophical gymnastics are not only expected but required.
Nevertheless, it would probably behoove orthodox thinkers wrestling with theodicy to consider the views of their heterodox brothers, particularly Nikolai Berdyaev, who formulated a more satisfactory theodicy, one that subtly challenges the Omnigod assumption yet still manages to maintain many orthodox bulwarks.
Berdyaev’s resolution for the problem of evil resides in the primacy of freedom, freedom over which God has little or no control. Though this conceptualization limits God’s omni capabilities, it also exonerates and vindicates Him from all responsibility for the existence of evil.
Berdyaev argues in favor of the existence of Jacob Boehme’s Ungrund — the Divine Nothing that is still Something — from which the Creator God emerges and, subsequently, creates the cosmos.
In The Destiny of Man, Berdyaev writes,
"From this point of view, it may be said that freedom is not created by God: it is rooted in the Nothing, in the UNGRUND from all eternity.
The opposition between God the Creator and freedom is secondary: in the primeval mystery of the Divine Nothing this opposition is transcended, for both God and freedom are manifested out of the UNGRUND.
God the Creator cannot be responsible for freedom which gave rise to evil. Man is the child of God and the child of freedom - of nothing, of non-being. Meonic freedom (το μη ον —that which is not, or nothingness) consented to God's act of creation; non-being freely accepted being."
In a nutshell, God emerged from freedom, a primordial nothingness that is not nothingness because it is freedom, and it is from this primordial nothingness that He creates.
Hence, everything God creates comes infused with what Berdyaev calls meonic freedom.
God, Berdyaev argues, is all-powerful over the parts He creates (being), but he has no power over the uncreated freedom from which he creates, the freedom that remains in his creations (meonic freedom, or non-being).
Berdyaev postulates that this uncreated freedom is the source of good and evil or, more precisely, that it offers beings the potential for good or evil.
Berdyaev’s theodicy succeeds where orthodox theodicies fail — uncreated freedom convincingly absolves God of evil. Since God did not create the primordial Divine Nothing from which He emerged and from which He creates, He cannot be held responsible for the potential for evil inherent in His Creation.
I suppose the same applies to the presence of good; however, Berdyaev argues that God exemplifies mastery over uncreated freedom by using His solely for good, while we exhibit significantly less mastery.
Though Berdyaev’s theodicy sets limits on God’s omni-powers, it still aligns (more or less) with many orthodox tenets, such as the Trinity and creation out of nothing (sort of, because the Ungrund is a nothing that is not nothing).
Following orthodox beliefs, Berdyaev does not believe God created from eternally existing elements. He also believes God is omni in everything except freedom.
Though I find Berdyaev’s theodicy far more cogent than traditional theodicies, I do not regard it as conclusive. Overall, I believe he takes many steps in the right direction, yet like his orthodox brethren, he is, in the end, far too wedded to convention and ultimately fails to push his breakthrough in the direction it wishes to go — the assumption of eternally existing Beings and pluralism.
But I’ll leave that for another post.
Short answer — you can’t.
Well, you can, but that requires mindbending scholastic and philosophical acrobatics. However, even after you painstakingly dot all the i’s and cross every single t, you are inevitably left with an inherently unsatisfying and, I dare say, disappointing argument.
Of course, most orthodox thinkers find such acrobatic resolutions completely satisfactory, and that’s fine.
I mean, if the assumption of Omnigod is non-negotiable, then philosophical gymnastics are not only expected but required.
Nevertheless, it would probably behoove orthodox thinkers wrestling with theodicy to consider the views of their heterodox brothers, particularly Nikolai Berdyaev, who formulated a more satisfactory theodicy, one that subtly challenges the Omnigod assumption yet still manages to maintain many orthodox bulwarks.
Berdyaev’s resolution for the problem of evil resides in the primacy of freedom, freedom over which God has little or no control. Though this conceptualization limits God’s omni capabilities, it also exonerates and vindicates Him from all responsibility for the existence of evil.
Berdyaev argues in favor of the existence of Jacob Boehme’s Ungrund — the Divine Nothing that is still Something — from which the Creator God emerges and, subsequently, creates the cosmos.
In The Destiny of Man, Berdyaev writes,
"From this point of view, it may be said that freedom is not created by God: it is rooted in the Nothing, in the UNGRUND from all eternity.
The opposition between God the Creator and freedom is secondary: in the primeval mystery of the Divine Nothing this opposition is transcended, for both God and freedom are manifested out of the UNGRUND.
God the Creator cannot be responsible for freedom which gave rise to evil. Man is the child of God and the child of freedom - of nothing, of non-being. Meonic freedom (το μη ον —that which is not, or nothingness) consented to God's act of creation; non-being freely accepted being."
In a nutshell, God emerged from freedom, a primordial nothingness that is not nothingness because it is freedom, and it is from this primordial nothingness that He creates.
Hence, everything God creates comes infused with what Berdyaev calls meonic freedom.
God, Berdyaev argues, is all-powerful over the parts He creates (being), but he has no power over the uncreated freedom from which he creates, the freedom that remains in his creations (meonic freedom, or non-being).
Berdyaev postulates that this uncreated freedom is the source of good and evil or, more precisely, that it offers beings the potential for good or evil.
Berdyaev’s theodicy succeeds where orthodox theodicies fail — uncreated freedom convincingly absolves God of evil. Since God did not create the primordial Divine Nothing from which He emerged and from which He creates, He cannot be held responsible for the potential for evil inherent in His Creation.
I suppose the same applies to the presence of good; however, Berdyaev argues that God exemplifies mastery over uncreated freedom by using His solely for good, while we exhibit significantly less mastery.
Though Berdyaev’s theodicy sets limits on God’s omni-powers, it still aligns (more or less) with many orthodox tenets, such as the Trinity and creation out of nothing (sort of, because the Ungrund is a nothing that is not nothing).
Following orthodox beliefs, Berdyaev does not believe God created from eternally existing elements. He also believes God is omni in everything except freedom.
Though I find Berdyaev’s theodicy far more cogent than traditional theodicies, I do not regard it as conclusive. Overall, I believe he takes many steps in the right direction, yet like his orthodox brethren, he is, in the end, far too wedded to convention and ultimately fails to push his breakthrough in the direction it wishes to go — the assumption of eternally existing Beings and pluralism.
But I’ll leave that for another post.
January 8, 2024
Though it Shouldn't, Easier Makes It Harder
If, as I believe, things came to a point in 2020, then discerning good and evil has never been easier.
It has never been easier to recognize that virtually all governments in the West have been structurally corrupted, that major corporations have been critically converged, that media have become inherently censurable, that education is fundamentally culpable, that organized Christianity has been hopelessly contaminated, that healthcare has been intrinsically degraded, that the arts have been intentionally debased, and that all the other things that comprise Western societies have, as a whole, become quagmires of immense material and spiritual decay (with the material being a part of the spiritual).
All of this is, or at least should be, easy to discern, implying that what remains of the good should also be easy to discern. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While the bulk of easily discernible evil is on full display in virtually everything exterior, the realm of detectable good has withered considerably in the external world, making it increasingly difficult to perceive, let alone identify.
The dominance of evil in the external does not imply that good does not exist “out there,” only that finding genuine, authentic, sincere good in the external world has become increasingly difficult.
Unlike previous generations, we cannot enjoy the luxury of autopilot mode when it comes to our societies and civilization.
We cannot go with the flow and remain comfortable in the assurance that all of the components of our societies and civilization, though flawed, are net good.
We must face the uncomfortable truth that our societies and civilization are net evil, make that our starting point, and travel forward from there.
Things coming to a point has made us freer , and for most, that’s precisely what makes it hard.
It has never been easier to recognize that virtually all governments in the West have been structurally corrupted, that major corporations have been critically converged, that media have become inherently censurable, that education is fundamentally culpable, that organized Christianity has been hopelessly contaminated, that healthcare has been intrinsically degraded, that the arts have been intentionally debased, and that all the other things that comprise Western societies have, as a whole, become quagmires of immense material and spiritual decay (with the material being a part of the spiritual).
All of this is, or at least should be, easy to discern, implying that what remains of the good should also be easy to discern. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While the bulk of easily discernible evil is on full display in virtually everything exterior, the realm of detectable good has withered considerably in the external world, making it increasingly difficult to perceive, let alone identify.
The dominance of evil in the external does not imply that good does not exist “out there,” only that finding genuine, authentic, sincere good in the external world has become increasingly difficult.
Unlike previous generations, we cannot enjoy the luxury of autopilot mode when it comes to our societies and civilization.
We cannot go with the flow and remain comfortable in the assurance that all of the components of our societies and civilization, though flawed, are net good.
We must face the uncomfortable truth that our societies and civilization are net evil, make that our starting point, and travel forward from there.
Things coming to a point has made us freer , and for most, that’s precisely what makes it hard.
Just in Case You Missed It Over the Holidays
New World Island's latest audio, posted during the holiday season. Enjoy!
January 7, 2024
The Primal Self is Positively Transformed by Direct Knowing, Not Symbolic Knowledge
A short while ago, Dr. Charlton posted some intriguing thoughts about the and theosis:
My assumption is that we have a primal self - which could also be called our real, true or divine self; and it is this which is eternal, and has existed from eternity. My primal self is "encased" within a mortal and temporarily-incarnated self; which is (approximately) our body and our personality - that which other people observe, and which interacts with The World.
The process called theosis describes the transformation of my primal self, across a timescale of eternity; but at present intended to be achieved by interaction-with, and learning-from, the experiences of my mortal self in this world.
So -- if I succeed in my God-given task of learning from the experiences God has set-up for me in this mortal world; then it is my primal self that is positively-transformed by this learning.
And it is this process of positive transformation of the primal self that can be called theosis.
This model may explain why it is that theosis is not necessarily (or usually) observable in a Christian individual.
Dr. Charlton’s post started me thinking about the nature of “learning from the experiences God has set up for me in this mortal world,” and I have arrived at a tentative intuition -- the bulk of the mortal life learning that directly impacts the primal self is probably non-symbolic, or more precisely beyond the symbolic (as far as I know, Dr. Charlton has more-or-less stated the same on his blog).
During our mortal lives, we rely on symbols to serve as intermediaries between the subject and reality. Put another way, symbols – including language – point us in the direction of reality without being reality themselves.
Well-motivated interpretations of symbols can help orientate us toward the truth and direct us to what we need to learn and understand; however, the essence of that learning and understanding must transcend the symbolic and be directly known.
The primal self is positively transformed by experiences of direct knowing – not the symbols that may have guided us to the experiences of direct knowledge.
This may help to explain why “what is happening is that the primal self is being transformed positively and eternally - but the bodily behavior and actions, and personality level motivations and thoughts; are Not (or not usually) being transformed.”
Symbols may lead us to experiences of direct knowing, but it is difficult to imagine how direct knowledge can be “translated back” into the symbolic without losing its essence, or why this process would even be necessary.
As noted above, this is a tentative intuition; however, I believe it may warrant some consideration, particularly when we factor in our current milieu of accelerated and ubiquitous symbol corruption, i.e., the expropriation, subversion, and inversion of symbols as intermediaries between subjects and reality, most frequently via the promulgation of the symbolic as reality (exacerbated by the increased use of AI and other virtuality technologies).
My assumption is that we have a primal self - which could also be called our real, true or divine self; and it is this which is eternal, and has existed from eternity. My primal self is "encased" within a mortal and temporarily-incarnated self; which is (approximately) our body and our personality - that which other people observe, and which interacts with The World.
The process called theosis describes the transformation of my primal self, across a timescale of eternity; but at present intended to be achieved by interaction-with, and learning-from, the experiences of my mortal self in this world.
So -- if I succeed in my God-given task of learning from the experiences God has set-up for me in this mortal world; then it is my primal self that is positively-transformed by this learning.
And it is this process of positive transformation of the primal self that can be called theosis.
This model may explain why it is that theosis is not necessarily (or usually) observable in a Christian individual.
Dr. Charlton’s post started me thinking about the nature of “learning from the experiences God has set up for me in this mortal world,” and I have arrived at a tentative intuition -- the bulk of the mortal life learning that directly impacts the primal self is probably non-symbolic, or more precisely beyond the symbolic (as far as I know, Dr. Charlton has more-or-less stated the same on his blog).
During our mortal lives, we rely on symbols to serve as intermediaries between the subject and reality. Put another way, symbols – including language – point us in the direction of reality without being reality themselves.
Well-motivated interpretations of symbols can help orientate us toward the truth and direct us to what we need to learn and understand; however, the essence of that learning and understanding must transcend the symbolic and be directly known.
The primal self is positively transformed by experiences of direct knowing – not the symbols that may have guided us to the experiences of direct knowledge.
This may help to explain why “what is happening is that the primal self is being transformed positively and eternally - but the bodily behavior and actions, and personality level motivations and thoughts; are Not (or not usually) being transformed.”
Symbols may lead us to experiences of direct knowing, but it is difficult to imagine how direct knowledge can be “translated back” into the symbolic without losing its essence, or why this process would even be necessary.
As noted above, this is a tentative intuition; however, I believe it may warrant some consideration, particularly when we factor in our current milieu of accelerated and ubiquitous symbol corruption, i.e., the expropriation, subversion, and inversion of symbols as intermediaries between subjects and reality, most frequently via the promulgation of the symbolic as reality (exacerbated by the increased use of AI and other virtuality technologies).
January 3, 2024
The Upside of Not Being Fully Up to Date on the News Cycle
I recently became fully aware of the plagiarism "scandal" at one of America's premier citadels of darkness; however, when I first saw this individual's image flash onscreen about a week ago... 
...I honestly thought I was looking at an image of this fictional television character from the 1990s. 
...I honestly thought I was looking at an image of this fictional television character from the 1990s.
January 2, 2024
The Wise and Dread Spirit of Self-Annihilation and Non-Existence
In Book V, Chapter 5 of The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan describes Satan as,
The wise and dread Spirit, the Spirit of self-annihilation and nonexistence.
Other translations of the text have the line as,
The terrible and clever Spirit, the Spirit of self-destruction and nonexistence.
The dread and intelligent Spirit, the Spirit of self-annihilation and non-being.
The above is among the best and most concise descriptions of what the devil is and what the devil does or aims to do.
First, it elucidates that the spirit in question is a whip-smart, higher-order thinker whose base motivations are, or should be considered, alarming, horrible, and dire.
Second, it clarifies Satan’s overarching aims of damnation. The devil works to persuade others to annihilate and destroy themselves spiritually.
More specifically, he wants a person to exterminate the self that is capable of choosing resurrection and everlasting life; the self that could leave the world with a high degree of integrity, cohesion, and selfhood; the self that can freely align with God’s divine creative purposes and add to or expand Creation.
If the devil can entice an individual to willingly destroy that self, he fulfills his objectives as the spirit of negation.
The primal self is eternal and cannot be destroyed; however, the affirmation of selfhood within that primal self can be smothered and stamped out.
The self-destroyed self continues to exist in a veritable state of non-existence. Instead of an evolved, developed self – a being committed to working in harmony with other beings to further God’s divine plan – the self enters a state of existent non-selfhood; an unaware, unknowing being whose existence is non-being.
Ivan Karamazov uses the words terrible and dread to describe Satan but these do not adhere to conventional notions of the devil as some scary, fear-inducing horror film monster.
The devil is fundamentally the spirit of negation. His motivations are operational. He strives to convince the world that Jesus is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Listen, the choice the devil wishes to instill – the contra with which he opposes Christ’s pro – is not irrational!
A wise and dread spirit indeed.
The wise and dread Spirit, the Spirit of self-annihilation and nonexistence.
Other translations of the text have the line as,
The terrible and clever Spirit, the Spirit of self-destruction and nonexistence.
The dread and intelligent Spirit, the Spirit of self-annihilation and non-being.
The above is among the best and most concise descriptions of what the devil is and what the devil does or aims to do.
First, it elucidates that the spirit in question is a whip-smart, higher-order thinker whose base motivations are, or should be considered, alarming, horrible, and dire.
Second, it clarifies Satan’s overarching aims of damnation. The devil works to persuade others to annihilate and destroy themselves spiritually.
More specifically, he wants a person to exterminate the self that is capable of choosing resurrection and everlasting life; the self that could leave the world with a high degree of integrity, cohesion, and selfhood; the self that can freely align with God’s divine creative purposes and add to or expand Creation.
If the devil can entice an individual to willingly destroy that self, he fulfills his objectives as the spirit of negation.
The primal self is eternal and cannot be destroyed; however, the affirmation of selfhood within that primal self can be smothered and stamped out.
The self-destroyed self continues to exist in a veritable state of non-existence. Instead of an evolved, developed self – a being committed to working in harmony with other beings to further God’s divine plan – the self enters a state of existent non-selfhood; an unaware, unknowing being whose existence is non-being.
Ivan Karamazov uses the words terrible and dread to describe Satan but these do not adhere to conventional notions of the devil as some scary, fear-inducing horror film monster.
The devil is fundamentally the spirit of negation. His motivations are operational. He strives to convince the world that Jesus is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Listen, the choice the devil wishes to instill – the contra with which he opposes Christ’s pro – is not irrational!
A wise and dread spirit indeed.
January 1, 2024
His Image Can Only Serve as a Guide
Thou didst desire man's free love, that he should follow Thee freely, enticed and taken captive by Thee. In place of the rigid, ancient law, man must hereafter, with a free heart, decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide.
I have referred to the passage above — taken from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov — as the best non-biblical encapsulation of what the essence of Christianity is.
Following Dr. Charlton’s incisive suggestions, I augmented the passage to include heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life:
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.
The augmented passage above still serves as my touchstone concerning the “is-ness” of Christianity.
Upon reviewing this augmented passage today, I was struck by the limited role of the symbols within it. Two references to symbols appear. The first — the ancient rigid law — is supplanted, while the second — the image of Jesus — is only meant to serve as a guide.
The limited role of the symbol within the original Dostoevsky passage is significant, particularly when juxtaposed against freedom, which appears three times in the passage — free love, follow freely, and free heart.
The rigid ancient law and the image of Jesus within the passage are intermediaries. The passage clearly states that the ancient law no longer serves; that it can no longer act as a bridge between the subject and reality.
The image of Jesus, on the other hand, does still serve as an intermediary, but only as an intermediary. The image is a guide, not a final destination. It points to reality but is not reality in and of itself.
It is worth noting that the bulk of the heavy lifting within the passage lands firmly on the shoulders of the subject.
Jesus desires the subject’s free love — love that the subject generates from within himself without the need for external influence, persuasion, or coercion.
Jesus also desires that the subject be enticed and taken captive by Him, but only by following Him freely. Again, the absence of all external influence, persuasion, or coercion.
Upon discerning the spiritual limits of the ancient rigid law, the subject must decide what is good and evil from his own free heart. Once again, the subject must decide, and he must decide with his own free heart, not his free mind, which is prone to wander into the realm of external symbols.
And within all of that, the image of Jesus serves only to guide. The subject motivated by free love should follow Jesus freely and free-heartedly decide for himself what is good and what is evil.
Without symbols and with the image of Jesus serving only as a guide, the subject must freely and directly know - heart-know - Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
He must allow the image to guide him to that directly-known reality.
Lacking that, the subject only gets as far as the image of Jesus.
I have referred to the passage above — taken from Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov — as the best non-biblical encapsulation of what the essence of Christianity is.
Following Dr. Charlton’s incisive suggestions, I augmented the passage to include heaven, resurrection, and everlasting life:
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.
The augmented passage above still serves as my touchstone concerning the “is-ness” of Christianity.
Upon reviewing this augmented passage today, I was struck by the limited role of the symbols within it. Two references to symbols appear. The first — the ancient rigid law — is supplanted, while the second — the image of Jesus — is only meant to serve as a guide.
The limited role of the symbol within the original Dostoevsky passage is significant, particularly when juxtaposed against freedom, which appears three times in the passage — free love, follow freely, and free heart.
The rigid ancient law and the image of Jesus within the passage are intermediaries. The passage clearly states that the ancient law no longer serves; that it can no longer act as a bridge between the subject and reality.
The image of Jesus, on the other hand, does still serve as an intermediary, but only as an intermediary. The image is a guide, not a final destination. It points to reality but is not reality in and of itself.
It is worth noting that the bulk of the heavy lifting within the passage lands firmly on the shoulders of the subject.
Jesus desires the subject’s free love — love that the subject generates from within himself without the need for external influence, persuasion, or coercion.
Jesus also desires that the subject be enticed and taken captive by Him, but only by following Him freely. Again, the absence of all external influence, persuasion, or coercion.
Upon discerning the spiritual limits of the ancient rigid law, the subject must decide what is good and evil from his own free heart. Once again, the subject must decide, and he must decide with his own free heart, not his free mind, which is prone to wander into the realm of external symbols.
And within all of that, the image of Jesus serves only to guide. The subject motivated by free love should follow Jesus freely and free-heartedly decide for himself what is good and what is evil.
Without symbols and with the image of Jesus serving only as a guide, the subject must freely and directly know - heart-know - Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
He must allow the image to guide him to that directly-known reality.
Lacking that, the subject only gets as far as the image of Jesus.
December 31, 2023
Top 2023 Posts
I used to rely on Google Analytics for blog stats, but they changed their format this year, and I didn't sign on for the changes, so I no longer have a clear idea of how many people visit the blog, how many hits a particular post gets, and so on.
In all honesty, I don't particularly care. This blog was never about numbers. One way or another, I believe the posts will find their way to the people that might benefit from them.
With that in mind, I present my top three 2023 posts, in terms of the benefit they provided me in writing them rather than in terms of views or hits.
1. As With Everything, When It Comes to Christian Blogs, Motivation is Key.
2. Regret and Repentance Are Not Synonymous
3. Being a Christian Today Entails Having Faith in the Faith Jesus Has in Us
Although I wrote some solid posts from time to time, I don't feel that 2023 was a particularly strong blogging year for me overall, as evidenced by the months I took off from blogging in the spring.
Here's hoping 2024 will be a bit better.
In all honesty, I don't particularly care. This blog was never about numbers. One way or another, I believe the posts will find their way to the people that might benefit from them.
With that in mind, I present my top three 2023 posts, in terms of the benefit they provided me in writing them rather than in terms of views or hits.
1. As With Everything, When It Comes to Christian Blogs, Motivation is Key.
2. Regret and Repentance Are Not Synonymous
3. Being a Christian Today Entails Having Faith in the Faith Jesus Has in Us
Although I wrote some solid posts from time to time, I don't feel that 2023 was a particularly strong blogging year for me overall, as evidenced by the months I took off from blogging in the spring.
Here's hoping 2024 will be a bit better.
December 30, 2023
Rough Notes on Symbols, Consciousness, Primal Reality, Etc.
I'm in the process of reviewing and clarifying some things concerning symbols and the evolution of consciousness. What follows are some very rough, uncrafted notes going over less-than-original concepts. Not the most exciting blog reading, I'm sure, but it's something I needed to do.
Before symbols, primal reality engulfed human consciousness. We were essentially “at one” with, united with other primal units of being, but our awareness of ourselves as primal units within that primal reality was dim. More accurately, our submergence and engulfment limited our ability to add creatively to that primal reality. We knew primal reality directly – but too directly.
Symbols helped separate us as primal units within reality. However, they also distanced us from primal reality. As symbols became more complex, we, as primal units of reality, surrendered our union with primal reality in favor of symbols signifying primal reality. We formed communities and, eventually, civilizations around these symbols and became “at one” with these civilizations of symbols.
We no longer participated in primal reality at a primal level; our participation and knowledge of primal reality became increasingly symbolic. More aware but less direct.
The symbol communities and civilizations required loyalty and obedience to the symbols connecting to primal reality. Instead of being submerged in primal reality, we became submerged in communities of symbols signifying or pointing to primal reality. Such communities and civilizations worked as long as the symbols attempted to serve as sincere intermediaries to primal reality.
Over time, the symbols took precedence over the primal reality they signified. The more symbols eclipsed or stood in place of primal reality; the more diminished spiritual participation in primal reality became.
Instead of participating in primal reality, people participated in symbolic systems with the caveat that they began to regard the symbolic systems as primal reality rather than as connectors to primal reality. Reliance on symbols as primary reality increased individuation. We became more aware of ourselves as “units”; however, we also became less aware of ourselves as authentic units of reality. We became symbolic units.
Expanding disconnection between symbols and primal reality heightened our alienation. We have attempted to bridge this gap by returning to earlier modes of participation through the use of symbolic systems, but these have always failed for the simple reason that our participation was always limited to the symbol systems themselves.
A gaping void now separates symbols from primal reality. We can no longer rely on symbols as reality. Those who rely on or mistake symbols for reality are led hopelessly astray. They are crossing bridges leading to nowhere.
Symbols can still serve as intermediaries. They can, perhaps, still help connect us to reality, but only if we acknowledge them as intermediaries first. The knowledge we obtain via the intermediaries must go beyond or rise above the intermediaries. Such knowledge cannot be symbolic; it must be direct.
The reality symbols point to what must be self-discovered and directly known by each of us, individually and spiritually. We are bound to find that many symbols are partial or misguided intermediaries. In such cases, we must have the courage and creativity to stick to our direct knowledge.
Our task now is to reunite with primal reality, but as “ones” aligned with and in harmony with other “ones” in primal reality rather than as submerged, dissolved units “at one” with primal reality or as “ones” submerged in collective symbolic systems.
Before symbols, primal reality engulfed human consciousness. We were essentially “at one” with, united with other primal units of being, but our awareness of ourselves as primal units within that primal reality was dim. More accurately, our submergence and engulfment limited our ability to add creatively to that primal reality. We knew primal reality directly – but too directly.
Symbols helped separate us as primal units within reality. However, they also distanced us from primal reality. As symbols became more complex, we, as primal units of reality, surrendered our union with primal reality in favor of symbols signifying primal reality. We formed communities and, eventually, civilizations around these symbols and became “at one” with these civilizations of symbols.
We no longer participated in primal reality at a primal level; our participation and knowledge of primal reality became increasingly symbolic. More aware but less direct.
The symbol communities and civilizations required loyalty and obedience to the symbols connecting to primal reality. Instead of being submerged in primal reality, we became submerged in communities of symbols signifying or pointing to primal reality. Such communities and civilizations worked as long as the symbols attempted to serve as sincere intermediaries to primal reality.
Over time, the symbols took precedence over the primal reality they signified. The more symbols eclipsed or stood in place of primal reality; the more diminished spiritual participation in primal reality became.
Instead of participating in primal reality, people participated in symbolic systems with the caveat that they began to regard the symbolic systems as primal reality rather than as connectors to primal reality. Reliance on symbols as primary reality increased individuation. We became more aware of ourselves as “units”; however, we also became less aware of ourselves as authentic units of reality. We became symbolic units.
Expanding disconnection between symbols and primal reality heightened our alienation. We have attempted to bridge this gap by returning to earlier modes of participation through the use of symbolic systems, but these have always failed for the simple reason that our participation was always limited to the symbol systems themselves.
A gaping void now separates symbols from primal reality. We can no longer rely on symbols as reality. Those who rely on or mistake symbols for reality are led hopelessly astray. They are crossing bridges leading to nowhere.
Symbols can still serve as intermediaries. They can, perhaps, still help connect us to reality, but only if we acknowledge them as intermediaries first. The knowledge we obtain via the intermediaries must go beyond or rise above the intermediaries. Such knowledge cannot be symbolic; it must be direct.
The reality symbols point to what must be self-discovered and directly known by each of us, individually and spiritually. We are bound to find that many symbols are partial or misguided intermediaries. In such cases, we must have the courage and creativity to stick to our direct knowledge.
Our task now is to reunite with primal reality, but as “ones” aligned with and in harmony with other “ones” in primal reality rather than as submerged, dissolved units “at one” with primal reality or as “ones” submerged in collective symbolic systems.
