Francis Berger's Blog, page 45
August 9, 2023
I Like This Song, But I Don't Know Why
I've been out of the indie music loop for well over twenty years, which means that all "new" indie songs I happen to discover are usually five-to-ten years old by the time I get around to hearing them for the first time.
Anyway, I stumbled upon the song No Woman by a band named Whitney about two or three weeks ago and find that I really like it.
The problem is, I don't know why.
I mean, I think the trumpet is great. At the same time, it seems somewhat out of place. The singer's nasally falsetto is charming but also grating. The song's lyrics are vague and minimal yet speak volumes. The mood hinges on depressing but is also sort of uplifting. The guitar melody is irritating but somehow magical.
Well, there it is. I like this song . . . but I couldn't tell you why.
Anyway, I stumbled upon the song No Woman by a band named Whitney about two or three weeks ago and find that I really like it.
The problem is, I don't know why.
I mean, I think the trumpet is great. At the same time, it seems somewhat out of place. The singer's nasally falsetto is charming but also grating. The song's lyrics are vague and minimal yet speak volumes. The mood hinges on depressing but is also sort of uplifting. The guitar melody is irritating but somehow magical.
Well, there it is. I like this song . . . but I couldn't tell you why.
A Sobering Thought
Having just watched The Irishman, I reflected back upon all of Martin Scorsese's other gangster films and came to the sobering conclusion that America was a much better place when the mafia ran it.
August 7, 2023
The System Does Not Rhyme or Reason
To point out that everything the System plans or does is inherently illogical should be Captain Obvious territory, yet for some strange reason, it isn’t. At least not for most people in the West.
Having said that, whenever you encounter anyone who defends anything the System plans or does as logical and coherent, take a moment to consider that you are dealing with one or more of the following:
a) a naïve/inexperienced individual
b) a bonafide idiot/cretin
c) an utterly despiritualized being open to nothing but the external/material
d) a thoroughly dishonest and corrupted soul
e) a System true believer or lackey focused on expediency, personal gain, damnation
f) all of the above
AI offers a vivid example of just how incoherent System aims and plans are. On the one hand, the System claims AI will replace 99.999985643% of all the jobs humans do on the planet. On the other hand, the System insists it must import millions of migrants and guest workers to fill the overflowing abundance of current and projected unfilled job vacancies.
Since we’re on the topic of guest workers and migrants, the System claims it must reduce standards of living in the West to fight climate change and reduce carbon footprints; yet, it sees nothing wrong with importing millions of migrants and guest workers from places with supposedly low carbon footprints and incorporating them into countries with high carbon footprints where the individual carbon footprints of said migrants and guest workers instantly increase at least ten-fold.
The System constantly squawks about defending the inalienable right to bodily autonomy for all sexual deviants yet wastes no time crushing the right to bodily autonomy when it comes to things like birdemic pecks.
The System continuously warns us that there is not enough money to pay for burgeoning social benefits like retirement as our societies continue to age yet it effortlessly finds an endless supply of money to pour into the current war just west of Vodkaland.
A few years ago, the System was willing to close down the entire world and its sacred democracies in the supposed effort to help save every single life. Now it is eager to kill everyone in the world name of its sacred democracies.
And so on . . .
The System’s incoherence is intentional, a part of its destruction/damnation objectives.
It is also safe to say that this incoherence is now perpetual – at least for as long as the System continues to function.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is not thinking and must be treated accordingly.
In light of this, I think it’s way past time for people to search for logic and coherence in the System and begin thinking outwith the System because logic and coherence – to say nothing of truth, beauty, virtue and everything else that is Good – can only exist outwith the System.
So start thinking outwith the System!
August 5, 2023
Subject-Object is Hell is Other People; Subject-Subject is Heaven is Each Other
Christians are generally wary of subjects and the subjective, which strikes me as odd when you consider that Jesus – the very nexus upon which the religion is founded – is the ultimate subject. He was the most unique consciousness, and His life demonstrated the most unique personal experiences. Jesus was also an observer and doer whose relationship with God transcended the subject-object paradigm.
Traditional/conventional Christianity solved the “problem” of this obvious transcendence of the subject-object relationship via the concept of the Trinity. I won’t wade into my concerns regarding this conceptualization other than to say it is very “neat and tidy” and offers Man nothing in the way of overcoming the seemingly insoluble subject-object “problem.”
Of course, very few Christians consider subject-object a “problem.” For them, subject-object is merely a fundamental aspect of reality; a logical and ontological organizing principle reflecting the nature of being and Creation. Subject-object is also the basis for epistemology – the core of how we know what we know and what we can hope to know.
Above all else, subject-object is meant to describe the nature of relationships of reality, which always seem to boil down to the basic dichotomies that are so ingrained in language – the observer and the observed; the doer and the receiver, and so forth.
Returning to Jesus as the ultimate subject, we must ask ourselves, how did He, as the highest form of subject imaginable on earth, relate to Beings that existed outside of Himself? As noted above, traditional/conventional Christian theology solved the subject-object problem at the divine level by making Jesus and God, and the Holy Spirit three separate beings that were really one being. But how did Jesus relate to other Beings that existed outside of himself? Moreover, how did Jesus want Beings who existed beyond himself to relate to Him?
The memorable “hell is other people” line from Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1944 play No Exit presents an extremely pessimistic assessment of human relationships within the subject-object paradigm. Sartre recognized that the underlying “problem” in subject-object is essentially a problem of freedom. Relationships within the subject-object framework inevitably imply incessant tension and conflict over freedom.
When we treat other Beings as objects, we undermine their freedom. Conversely, when we allow other Beings to treat us as objects, we undermine our own freedom. One way or the other, the subject-object paradigm always threatens and impinges on some Being’s freedom, which often leads to conflict and struggles for dominance.
Despite his apparent pessimism about human relationships, Sartre did not resign himself to his famous “hell is other people” line. On the contrary, he noted that “hell is other people” is not set in stone, but conditional, with much depending on our approach to relationships. Put another way, Sartre believed that hell can be other people but did not need to be. Everything depends on how we see ourselves, and how we choose to think about and relate to other people.
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre presents an intriguing revelation to support his optimism concerning relationships between Beings in the subject-object paradigm:
“These considerations do not exclude the possibility of an ethics of deliverance and salvation. But this can be achieved only after a radical conversion which we cannot discuss here.”
The implicitly spiritual/religious overtones in Sartre’s revelation are even more intriguing when we consider that they emanate from a thinker whose core atheistic intuition informed him of the absence of God.
For the sake of brevity, I will set aside deliverance and salvation and focus instead on Sartre’s notion of radical conversion, which presumably involves a shift from bad faith to a more authentic mode of being.
Sartre used the term bad faith to refer primarily to a form of self-deception people employ to convince themselves that they are not truly free or ultimately responsible for their actions. Put simply, bad faith is the equivalent of making excuses. A convenient way of creating false selves to hide behind and obscure the true self.
Sartre insisted that relationships founded upon bad faith were doomed to fail because they did not aim for any sort of radical conversion that addressed freedom within the subject-object relationship framework.
This brings us back to the questions of how Jesus related to other Beings and how Jesus wanted other Beings to relate to Him. I posit that Jesus achieved and demonstrated the radical conversion Sartre touched upon but never expounded. That radical conversion involved the complete transformation of the subject-object paradigm within Jesus’s thinking.
Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor famously remarked that Jesus increased people’s freedom, and I believe a big part of this increased freedom resides in Jesus’s transformation of subject-object.
Jesus understood that treating other Beings as objects immediately encroached upon their freedom. He also understood that His freedom would be encroached upon if He allowed Himself to be treated as an object. Thus, what Jesus aimed for and ultimately achieved was the radical conversion of the subject-object paradigm into what I can only describe as a subject-subject paradigm.
One way to think about subject-subject is to regard it as the most authentic form of relationship that involves the true selves of Beings. This relationship of true selves transcends subject-object because it seeks to expand freedom rather than constrain or curtail it. This expansion of freedom applies to both subjects within the relationship and includes the freedom of the self and freedom of the other self.
In a 1971 interview, Sartre clarified the glaring pessimism inherent in his “hell is other people” statement by offering the following:
“But that’s only that side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also “Heaven is each other.” … Hell is separateness, incommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven, on the other hand, is very simple—and very hard: caring about your fellow beings.”
One of my core metaphysical assumptions is that Creation is primarily about relationships between Beings, with the overarching aim of eternally committing to relationships in which we align our freedom with God and begin to work co-creatively together within Creation while maintaining our authentic selves and supporting the authentic selves of others. Our relationship experiences in mortal life in this world are necessary for us to learn about our freedom and the freedom of others via relationships.
Unfortunately, most relationships in mortal life are anchored in Sartre’s “hell is other people” – in alienation, self-centeredness, lust for dominance and power, and so forth. Much of the problem seems to reside in our subject-object mode of thinking, in our apparent desire to regard and treat other people and Beings as objects and also be treated as objects by other people and Beings. The inability to overcome objectification presents us with a major obstacle when it comes to freedom – our own and others.
To say nothing of love.
I believe the ultimate aim of Creation is not “hell is other people” but “Heaven is each other.” During his mortal life, Jesus overcame “hell is other people” and lived “Heaven is each other” by overcoming the subject-object paradigm through freedom and, more significantly, through love.
Jesus was the freest of the sons of men because he did not encroach upon the freedom of Beings by regarding them as objects and did not think of Himself as an object when other Beings treated Him as such, and He accomplished all of this through thinking motivated by love.
Jesus is the radical conversion Sartre mentioned but never elaborated upon.
Jesus is the transformation; He transcends subject-object and enters authenticity. His radical conversion is available to us during mortal life in thinking , but we are unlikely to find the full experience of “Heaven is each other” in this world.
Lucky for us, we are guaranteed to experience "Heaven is each other" in Heaven; however, we must want it and commit to it, which entails wanting and committing to authentic relationships that go beyond subject-object and enter the realm of subject-subject – which is only possible through expanding freedom generated by love.
Traditional/conventional Christianity solved the “problem” of this obvious transcendence of the subject-object relationship via the concept of the Trinity. I won’t wade into my concerns regarding this conceptualization other than to say it is very “neat and tidy” and offers Man nothing in the way of overcoming the seemingly insoluble subject-object “problem.”
Of course, very few Christians consider subject-object a “problem.” For them, subject-object is merely a fundamental aspect of reality; a logical and ontological organizing principle reflecting the nature of being and Creation. Subject-object is also the basis for epistemology – the core of how we know what we know and what we can hope to know.
Above all else, subject-object is meant to describe the nature of relationships of reality, which always seem to boil down to the basic dichotomies that are so ingrained in language – the observer and the observed; the doer and the receiver, and so forth.
Returning to Jesus as the ultimate subject, we must ask ourselves, how did He, as the highest form of subject imaginable on earth, relate to Beings that existed outside of Himself? As noted above, traditional/conventional Christian theology solved the subject-object problem at the divine level by making Jesus and God, and the Holy Spirit three separate beings that were really one being. But how did Jesus relate to other Beings that existed outside of himself? Moreover, how did Jesus want Beings who existed beyond himself to relate to Him?
The memorable “hell is other people” line from Jean-Paul Sartre’s 1944 play No Exit presents an extremely pessimistic assessment of human relationships within the subject-object paradigm. Sartre recognized that the underlying “problem” in subject-object is essentially a problem of freedom. Relationships within the subject-object framework inevitably imply incessant tension and conflict over freedom.
When we treat other Beings as objects, we undermine their freedom. Conversely, when we allow other Beings to treat us as objects, we undermine our own freedom. One way or the other, the subject-object paradigm always threatens and impinges on some Being’s freedom, which often leads to conflict and struggles for dominance.
Despite his apparent pessimism about human relationships, Sartre did not resign himself to his famous “hell is other people” line. On the contrary, he noted that “hell is other people” is not set in stone, but conditional, with much depending on our approach to relationships. Put another way, Sartre believed that hell can be other people but did not need to be. Everything depends on how we see ourselves, and how we choose to think about and relate to other people.
In Being and Nothingness, Sartre presents an intriguing revelation to support his optimism concerning relationships between Beings in the subject-object paradigm:
“These considerations do not exclude the possibility of an ethics of deliverance and salvation. But this can be achieved only after a radical conversion which we cannot discuss here.”
The implicitly spiritual/religious overtones in Sartre’s revelation are even more intriguing when we consider that they emanate from a thinker whose core atheistic intuition informed him of the absence of God.
For the sake of brevity, I will set aside deliverance and salvation and focus instead on Sartre’s notion of radical conversion, which presumably involves a shift from bad faith to a more authentic mode of being.
Sartre used the term bad faith to refer primarily to a form of self-deception people employ to convince themselves that they are not truly free or ultimately responsible for their actions. Put simply, bad faith is the equivalent of making excuses. A convenient way of creating false selves to hide behind and obscure the true self.
Sartre insisted that relationships founded upon bad faith were doomed to fail because they did not aim for any sort of radical conversion that addressed freedom within the subject-object relationship framework.
This brings us back to the questions of how Jesus related to other Beings and how Jesus wanted other Beings to relate to Him. I posit that Jesus achieved and demonstrated the radical conversion Sartre touched upon but never expounded. That radical conversion involved the complete transformation of the subject-object paradigm within Jesus’s thinking.
Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor famously remarked that Jesus increased people’s freedom, and I believe a big part of this increased freedom resides in Jesus’s transformation of subject-object.
Jesus understood that treating other Beings as objects immediately encroached upon their freedom. He also understood that His freedom would be encroached upon if He allowed Himself to be treated as an object. Thus, what Jesus aimed for and ultimately achieved was the radical conversion of the subject-object paradigm into what I can only describe as a subject-subject paradigm.
One way to think about subject-subject is to regard it as the most authentic form of relationship that involves the true selves of Beings. This relationship of true selves transcends subject-object because it seeks to expand freedom rather than constrain or curtail it. This expansion of freedom applies to both subjects within the relationship and includes the freedom of the self and freedom of the other self.
In a 1971 interview, Sartre clarified the glaring pessimism inherent in his “hell is other people” statement by offering the following:
“But that’s only that side of the coin. The other side, which no one seems to mention, is also “Heaven is each other.” … Hell is separateness, incommunicability, self-centeredness, lust for power, for riches, for fame. Heaven, on the other hand, is very simple—and very hard: caring about your fellow beings.”
One of my core metaphysical assumptions is that Creation is primarily about relationships between Beings, with the overarching aim of eternally committing to relationships in which we align our freedom with God and begin to work co-creatively together within Creation while maintaining our authentic selves and supporting the authentic selves of others. Our relationship experiences in mortal life in this world are necessary for us to learn about our freedom and the freedom of others via relationships.
Unfortunately, most relationships in mortal life are anchored in Sartre’s “hell is other people” – in alienation, self-centeredness, lust for dominance and power, and so forth. Much of the problem seems to reside in our subject-object mode of thinking, in our apparent desire to regard and treat other people and Beings as objects and also be treated as objects by other people and Beings. The inability to overcome objectification presents us with a major obstacle when it comes to freedom – our own and others.
To say nothing of love.
I believe the ultimate aim of Creation is not “hell is other people” but “Heaven is each other.” During his mortal life, Jesus overcame “hell is other people” and lived “Heaven is each other” by overcoming the subject-object paradigm through freedom and, more significantly, through love.
Jesus was the freest of the sons of men because he did not encroach upon the freedom of Beings by regarding them as objects and did not think of Himself as an object when other Beings treated Him as such, and He accomplished all of this through thinking motivated by love.
Jesus is the radical conversion Sartre mentioned but never elaborated upon.
Jesus is the transformation; He transcends subject-object and enters authenticity. His radical conversion is available to us during mortal life in thinking , but we are unlikely to find the full experience of “Heaven is each other” in this world.
Lucky for us, we are guaranteed to experience "Heaven is each other" in Heaven; however, we must want it and commit to it, which entails wanting and committing to authentic relationships that go beyond subject-object and enter the realm of subject-subject – which is only possible through expanding freedom generated by love.
August 4, 2023
A Few Stray Thoughts on Orbán's Claim That Russia Cannot Be Defeated
Despite conservative and Christian appraisals to the contrary, Viktor Orbán is, at best, a representative of what I would describe as “lesser evil.” To those who believe otherwise, allow me to adopt and slightly alter Dr. Evil’s terminology from the Austin Powers films.
If Orbán is Good, then he is not Good enough. He is quasi-Good; he is semi-Good. He is the margarine of Good. He is the Diet Coke of Good. Just one calorie. Not Good enough.
That aside, Orbán still occasionally demonstrates perspicacity transcending the sycophantic, servile, intentional obtuseness dominating the West. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Orbán’s sober assessment of the West’s chances of defeating Russia.
A couple of months ago, the Hungarian prime minister – who has, officially at least, positioned himself in opposition to the war from the get-go – bluntly stated that he considered it inconceivable that Russia can be defeated because it is a nuclear power.
Political commentators were quick to call out the short-sightedness of Orbán’s claim by referring to several conflicts in modern history when nuclear powers were indeed, for all intents and purposes, defeated. Vietnam for France and the United States, and Afghanistan for the U.S. and Russia. As undeniable as these examples are, they miss the mark concerning the main point Orbán attempted to make.
Nuclear powers have been defeated in conflicts that could be described as campaigns, but these defeats did not result in the total defeat of the campaigning nation as a military force or nuclear power. With this in mind, perhaps it is more precise to say that Russia cannot be conquered because it is a nuclear power.
If the past is any guide, Russia has a long history of being unconquerable, even when it was defeated. That it has become and remains a significant nuclear power makes it more unconquerable. Add the fact that the current conflict is a fundamentally existential struggle for Russia, and the prospects of successful conquest grow even dimmer.
To quote Orbán, “So to think that the Russians will sit back and watch themselves being defeated, their political system collapsing, their president being assassinated, drone attacks over Red Square, and so on, and that they will stand by and watch this happen and resign themselves to a military defeat, well, anyone who believes this has not grown up. This sort of thing only happens in fairytales, not reality.”
I am inclined to agree with Orbán’s assessment. Moreover, the stakes of the present conflict and the tactics the Russians may be willing to employ continuously bring the 2002 Nord-Ost siege to mind. During that crisis, 40 Chechens took 850 Dubrovka Theater patrons hostage in Moscow and demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces from Chechnya.
The crisis ended a few days later when Russian Special Forces stormed the theater and killed every Chechen hostage-taker. Most had been rendered unconscious by a mysterious gas the Special Forces had pumped into the building. The Russians showed no mercy and simply shot them dead wherever they happened to find them. The undisclosed chemical agent also killed 130 of the 850 theater patrons, which was stoically deemed an acceptable loss.
I raise this not as a criticism of Russia or Russian tactics. If anything, it merely serves as a reminder of the actions Russia is willing to take when its enemies attempt to press its back against a wall. That its enemies continue to display increasingly Sorathic tendencies only strengthens Russia's resolve.
Defeating is one thing. Conquering is something else entirely.
If Orbán is Good, then he is not Good enough. He is quasi-Good; he is semi-Good. He is the margarine of Good. He is the Diet Coke of Good. Just one calorie. Not Good enough.
That aside, Orbán still occasionally demonstrates perspicacity transcending the sycophantic, servile, intentional obtuseness dominating the West. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Orbán’s sober assessment of the West’s chances of defeating Russia.
A couple of months ago, the Hungarian prime minister – who has, officially at least, positioned himself in opposition to the war from the get-go – bluntly stated that he considered it inconceivable that Russia can be defeated because it is a nuclear power.
Political commentators were quick to call out the short-sightedness of Orbán’s claim by referring to several conflicts in modern history when nuclear powers were indeed, for all intents and purposes, defeated. Vietnam for France and the United States, and Afghanistan for the U.S. and Russia. As undeniable as these examples are, they miss the mark concerning the main point Orbán attempted to make.
Nuclear powers have been defeated in conflicts that could be described as campaigns, but these defeats did not result in the total defeat of the campaigning nation as a military force or nuclear power. With this in mind, perhaps it is more precise to say that Russia cannot be conquered because it is a nuclear power.
If the past is any guide, Russia has a long history of being unconquerable, even when it was defeated. That it has become and remains a significant nuclear power makes it more unconquerable. Add the fact that the current conflict is a fundamentally existential struggle for Russia, and the prospects of successful conquest grow even dimmer.
To quote Orbán, “So to think that the Russians will sit back and watch themselves being defeated, their political system collapsing, their president being assassinated, drone attacks over Red Square, and so on, and that they will stand by and watch this happen and resign themselves to a military defeat, well, anyone who believes this has not grown up. This sort of thing only happens in fairytales, not reality.”
I am inclined to agree with Orbán’s assessment. Moreover, the stakes of the present conflict and the tactics the Russians may be willing to employ continuously bring the 2002 Nord-Ost siege to mind. During that crisis, 40 Chechens took 850 Dubrovka Theater patrons hostage in Moscow and demanded the withdrawal of Russian forces from Chechnya.
The crisis ended a few days later when Russian Special Forces stormed the theater and killed every Chechen hostage-taker. Most had been rendered unconscious by a mysterious gas the Special Forces had pumped into the building. The Russians showed no mercy and simply shot them dead wherever they happened to find them. The undisclosed chemical agent also killed 130 of the 850 theater patrons, which was stoically deemed an acceptable loss.
I raise this not as a criticism of Russia or Russian tactics. If anything, it merely serves as a reminder of the actions Russia is willing to take when its enemies attempt to press its back against a wall. That its enemies continue to display increasingly Sorathic tendencies only strengthens Russia's resolve.
Defeating is one thing. Conquering is something else entirely.
August 3, 2023
Why Was Jesus the Freest of the Sons of Men?
Dr. Charlton raised some interesting points in his recent post on freedom and love:
Freedom plus Love equals Creation... But, on the other hand; freedom without Love is selfish desire.
It is therefore rational to fear the freedom of those who do not love us.
It is rational for those who desire to be Good; to fear their own freedom - since they know that (in this mortal life) love does not always or fully rule their motivations.
In sum: Freedom is thinking (thus living) from-oneself; but that is insufficient in a world of other Beings, it does not take account of other Beings except insofar as they gratify us.
Thus, freedom without love is demonic - and regards the rest of creation as ripe for subordination to its own gratification.
Yet indifference to freedom is potentially demonic too: especially indifference to the freedom of others - and the idea that "the rest of the world" might be/ out to be subordinated to our own untrammeled freedom to think/ say/ do... whatever we want.
Further on in the post, Dr. Charlton notes:
The situation is that only those who genuinely value freedom as a core and indispensable basis of life, will want Heaven – because Heaven (unlike Paradise, Nirvana, or Hell) is a place of creation – and creation entails freedom.
Yet, this absolute, non-negotiable ideal of freedom also requires a full acknowledgement that freedom is only Good when it is absolutely subordinated to love; and in this mortal life, love is not absolute, therefore freedom will not be subordinated to love either fully or always.
There is no paradox or conflict here; there is no place for compromise or a 'middle way' – it is a simple reality rooted in the difference between mortal life and heaven, and a recognition that what is not just possible but absolute in Heaven; is only partly possible and never absolute here on earth.
If Christianity has one tragic flaw, it lies in underemphasizing the crucial and central role of freedom.
Granted, Christianity has valid reasons to be wary of freedom, especially since the unfurling of the banner of liberty during the era of Enlightenment and Revolution, which drove a stake through the heart of throne and altar Christendom, thereby birthing what most Christians pejoratively refer to as the modern world.
To a large extent, Christians are right to criticize the liberty banner as a spiritually destructive force. As history has shown, liberty first provided man with freedom from restrictive social and religious orders; however, it eventually led man away from God altogether.
Though most Christians believe otherwise, the initial movements of liberty contained some good within it and orientated man in a largely positive direction via freedom in thinking.
The problem with liberty is it aimed its freedom-for away from Creation toward things like humanism. Put another way, liberty fell into the trap Dr. Charlton describes above – it fundamentally failed to subordinate freedom to love and became a vehicle for selfish desire, power games, and self-gratification.
By the same token, Christendom fundamentally rejected the freedom to which love could be properly subordinated, thus stifling creativity. Christendom Christianity offered plenty of freedom from but very little in the way of freedom for.
This discussion of freedom and love reminded me – once again – of a brilliant passage from Berdyaev’s Slavery and Freedom:
Christ was a free man, the freest of the sons of men. He was free from the world; He was bound only by love. Christ spoke as one having authority, but He did not have the will to authority, and He was not a master.
What made Jesus a free man? The freest of the sons of men?
As Berdyaev notes, Jesus was free from the world. In other words, His thinking was free from the sort of self-gratifying, selfish, demonic “freedom” Dr. Charlton notes above. His thinking was also free from the external heteronomy in which He lived.
Berdyaev goes on to point out that the only means through which Jesus was bound was by love, suggesting that Jesus successfully subordinated his freedom to love.
To what sort of love did Jesus subordinate his freedom? Well, it certainly had to be more than a love of tradition or family or race or the religious conventions of that time and place, because if He had subordinated His freedom to those things alone, He would have eventually found himself in unfreedom.
But doesn’t the whole notion of subordinating freedom to love render freedom unfree?
No. Freedom is free when it is for God and Creation.
Modern people view God and Creation as an encroachment on their personal, selfish freedom-from form of freedom, and in this, they are not entirely wrong. However, they are entirely wrong in believing that selfish freedom from is freedom at all.
Jesus was the freest of the sons of the men because He was the first to fully align his freedom with God’s freedom – and the vehicle of this alignment was Jesus’s love, a love that freed Him from all selfish and self-gratifying false-self temptations and external, enslaving factors and allowed Him to operate fully from His divine self, which was completely in harmony with God and Creation. Once this harmony was in place, Jesus could consciously and effectively co-create in God's creation.
Jesus did more than demonstrate true freedom – His life is a testament to the ultimate form of freedom – freedom with God. Once He became a full co-creator in Creation, He was working with God rather than just working for the cause of God.
Put simply, Jesus was able to do on earth what we will very likely only be able to do in Heaven, but if we want to be free with God in Heaven, we must begin to sort out our freedom froms and freedom fors during our mortal lives.
And that begins with the understanding that Jesus increases our freedom and continues to the reality that love is the only way to harness this increased freedom for creativity.
Freedom plus Love equals Creation... But, on the other hand; freedom without Love is selfish desire.
It is therefore rational to fear the freedom of those who do not love us.
It is rational for those who desire to be Good; to fear their own freedom - since they know that (in this mortal life) love does not always or fully rule their motivations.
In sum: Freedom is thinking (thus living) from-oneself; but that is insufficient in a world of other Beings, it does not take account of other Beings except insofar as they gratify us.
Thus, freedom without love is demonic - and regards the rest of creation as ripe for subordination to its own gratification.
Yet indifference to freedom is potentially demonic too: especially indifference to the freedom of others - and the idea that "the rest of the world" might be/ out to be subordinated to our own untrammeled freedom to think/ say/ do... whatever we want.
Further on in the post, Dr. Charlton notes:
The situation is that only those who genuinely value freedom as a core and indispensable basis of life, will want Heaven – because Heaven (unlike Paradise, Nirvana, or Hell) is a place of creation – and creation entails freedom.
Yet, this absolute, non-negotiable ideal of freedom also requires a full acknowledgement that freedom is only Good when it is absolutely subordinated to love; and in this mortal life, love is not absolute, therefore freedom will not be subordinated to love either fully or always.
There is no paradox or conflict here; there is no place for compromise or a 'middle way' – it is a simple reality rooted in the difference between mortal life and heaven, and a recognition that what is not just possible but absolute in Heaven; is only partly possible and never absolute here on earth.
If Christianity has one tragic flaw, it lies in underemphasizing the crucial and central role of freedom.
Granted, Christianity has valid reasons to be wary of freedom, especially since the unfurling of the banner of liberty during the era of Enlightenment and Revolution, which drove a stake through the heart of throne and altar Christendom, thereby birthing what most Christians pejoratively refer to as the modern world.
To a large extent, Christians are right to criticize the liberty banner as a spiritually destructive force. As history has shown, liberty first provided man with freedom from restrictive social and religious orders; however, it eventually led man away from God altogether.
Though most Christians believe otherwise, the initial movements of liberty contained some good within it and orientated man in a largely positive direction via freedom in thinking.
The problem with liberty is it aimed its freedom-for away from Creation toward things like humanism. Put another way, liberty fell into the trap Dr. Charlton describes above – it fundamentally failed to subordinate freedom to love and became a vehicle for selfish desire, power games, and self-gratification.
By the same token, Christendom fundamentally rejected the freedom to which love could be properly subordinated, thus stifling creativity. Christendom Christianity offered plenty of freedom from but very little in the way of freedom for.
This discussion of freedom and love reminded me – once again – of a brilliant passage from Berdyaev’s Slavery and Freedom:
Christ was a free man, the freest of the sons of men. He was free from the world; He was bound only by love. Christ spoke as one having authority, but He did not have the will to authority, and He was not a master.
What made Jesus a free man? The freest of the sons of men?
As Berdyaev notes, Jesus was free from the world. In other words, His thinking was free from the sort of self-gratifying, selfish, demonic “freedom” Dr. Charlton notes above. His thinking was also free from the external heteronomy in which He lived.
Berdyaev goes on to point out that the only means through which Jesus was bound was by love, suggesting that Jesus successfully subordinated his freedom to love.
To what sort of love did Jesus subordinate his freedom? Well, it certainly had to be more than a love of tradition or family or race or the religious conventions of that time and place, because if He had subordinated His freedom to those things alone, He would have eventually found himself in unfreedom.
But doesn’t the whole notion of subordinating freedom to love render freedom unfree?
No. Freedom is free when it is for God and Creation.
Modern people view God and Creation as an encroachment on their personal, selfish freedom-from form of freedom, and in this, they are not entirely wrong. However, they are entirely wrong in believing that selfish freedom from is freedom at all.
Jesus was the freest of the sons of the men because He was the first to fully align his freedom with God’s freedom – and the vehicle of this alignment was Jesus’s love, a love that freed Him from all selfish and self-gratifying false-self temptations and external, enslaving factors and allowed Him to operate fully from His divine self, which was completely in harmony with God and Creation. Once this harmony was in place, Jesus could consciously and effectively co-create in God's creation.
Jesus did more than demonstrate true freedom – His life is a testament to the ultimate form of freedom – freedom with God. Once He became a full co-creator in Creation, He was working with God rather than just working for the cause of God.
Put simply, Jesus was able to do on earth what we will very likely only be able to do in Heaven, but if we want to be free with God in Heaven, we must begin to sort out our freedom froms and freedom fors during our mortal lives.
And that begins with the understanding that Jesus increases our freedom and continues to the reality that love is the only way to harness this increased freedom for creativity.
August 1, 2023
Landscapes as Personified Beings
An imaginative take on the landscape by the contemporary Hungarian painter Tamás Galambos. 
July 30, 2023
Back on Track in August
Regular readers of this blog will surely have noticed the irregularity of my posting in the past few weeks. I won't make excuses, but I will offer a brief explanation.
My parents -- both in their seventies -- were visiting us from North America these past few weeks. I also attended two weddings, tended to fifteen young hens, and contended with my new, oddball rooster.
On top of that, I came up with a grand idea -- constructing a seven-by-two meter fence wall out of decorative concrete blocks.
Needless to say, time was short in July, but things are calming down, and I shall resume regular, daily blogging from here on in and be back on track in August.
My parents -- both in their seventies -- were visiting us from North America these past few weeks. I also attended two weddings, tended to fifteen young hens, and contended with my new, oddball rooster.
On top of that, I came up with a grand idea -- constructing a seven-by-two meter fence wall out of decorative concrete blocks.
Needless to say, time was short in July, but things are calming down, and I shall resume regular, daily blogging from here on in and be back on track in August.
July 25, 2023
Berdyaev.com Has Been Hijacked
The website that the late Fr. Stephen Janos -- an Orthodox priest, Russian translator, and respected penfriend -- dedicated to Nikolai Berdyaev has been hijacked by, of all things, a Vietnamese gambling cartel.
Should you visit the site today, all you find is a picture of Berdyaev followed by a lot of gambling-related nonsense written in what I assume to be Vietnamese.
Fr. Janos's son -- who has managed the site since his father passed away -- is apparently working to regain control of the property. I hope he is successful in that endeavor. Berdyaev.com was not only an excellent source of Berdyaev material, but stood as a testament to the site's creator, who invested much time and energy into translating many of Berdyaev's lesser known and/or untranslated works.
The unfortunate development has forced me to remove Berdyaev.com from the blog roll, but I will return it to its rightful place the second the site returns to its rightful owners.
Should you visit the site today, all you find is a picture of Berdyaev followed by a lot of gambling-related nonsense written in what I assume to be Vietnamese.
Fr. Janos's son -- who has managed the site since his father passed away -- is apparently working to regain control of the property. I hope he is successful in that endeavor. Berdyaev.com was not only an excellent source of Berdyaev material, but stood as a testament to the site's creator, who invested much time and energy into translating many of Berdyaev's lesser known and/or untranslated works.
The unfortunate development has forced me to remove Berdyaev.com from the blog roll, but I will return it to its rightful place the second the site returns to its rightful owners.
July 24, 2023
Email to an Atheist Friend
A slightly edited version of an email I wrote to an atheist friend in Canada:
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. As I mentioned in my previous email, things are a bit hectic for me at the moment. My parents are here visiting from Canada, and I am in the middle of building an eight-meter fence wall out of concrete blocks.
Concerning Canada, I left the country when I was thirty, and with the exception of the two years I spent there around the time my son was born, I haven't lived in the "northern gulag", as you call it, for about twenty years. Still, I'm pretty up-to-date about the degeneration and decline of the nation as I speak to my father via Skype every week. All I can say is I sort of saw the writing on the wall just before I left for good. Still, I couldn't have predicted the extent of the terrible things that have transpired since.
Things in Hungary are a bit better I suppose, but Hungary is a part of the European Union and the West. This means it is embroiled in the "globohomo" agenda, however reluctantly.
I don't hold out much hope for Orbán. He and his government showed their true colors when they stomped on us quite hard over here during the birdemic. The propaganda and restrictions were as relentless and intense as they were anywhere else. I lost a well-paying job in Austria for refusing the peck and nearly lost my job in Hungary for the same reason. Now, the birdemic has been conveniently forgotten by most people. As if it never happened.
I don't know what to tell you beyond that I see this time as a period of "things coming to a point." The evil and corruption that permeates all institutions, organizations, and, sadly, most individuals in the West has become clearer and sharper, to the point of being undeniable. In many ways, everything has become black and white. There are no grey areas left, which entails that choices need to be made regarding which side people want to be on.
I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to anything involving governments, institutions, companies, organizations, etc. Though I respect your motivation to protest, I don't believe such protests will have much of an effect.
The sad truth is that most people appear to welcome being enslaved by the totalitarians, and until that changes I don't hold out much hope.
The only slim hope I do have is that the powers-that-should-not-be are not nearly as intelligent or competent as they make themselves out to be. With any luck, they'll mess up their totalitarianism in grand style and collapse their system into nothingness.
Of course, such an outcome would likely also mean the deaths of hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions.
I have found reprieve and positive motivation in the spiritual -- not in organized religion -- but within a solitary form of Christianity. I mention this because I have come to the conclusion that all of what we are experiencing now ultimately stems from negative spiritual aims emanating from the highest of places -- or lowest, depending on your perspective.
Best,
Frankie
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. As I mentioned in my previous email, things are a bit hectic for me at the moment. My parents are here visiting from Canada, and I am in the middle of building an eight-meter fence wall out of concrete blocks.
Concerning Canada, I left the country when I was thirty, and with the exception of the two years I spent there around the time my son was born, I haven't lived in the "northern gulag", as you call it, for about twenty years. Still, I'm pretty up-to-date about the degeneration and decline of the nation as I speak to my father via Skype every week. All I can say is I sort of saw the writing on the wall just before I left for good. Still, I couldn't have predicted the extent of the terrible things that have transpired since.
Things in Hungary are a bit better I suppose, but Hungary is a part of the European Union and the West. This means it is embroiled in the "globohomo" agenda, however reluctantly.
I don't hold out much hope for Orbán. He and his government showed their true colors when they stomped on us quite hard over here during the birdemic. The propaganda and restrictions were as relentless and intense as they were anywhere else. I lost a well-paying job in Austria for refusing the peck and nearly lost my job in Hungary for the same reason. Now, the birdemic has been conveniently forgotten by most people. As if it never happened.
I don't know what to tell you beyond that I see this time as a period of "things coming to a point." The evil and corruption that permeates all institutions, organizations, and, sadly, most individuals in the West has become clearer and sharper, to the point of being undeniable. In many ways, everything has become black and white. There are no grey areas left, which entails that choices need to be made regarding which side people want to be on.
I am extremely pessimistic when it comes to anything involving governments, institutions, companies, organizations, etc. Though I respect your motivation to protest, I don't believe such protests will have much of an effect.
The sad truth is that most people appear to welcome being enslaved by the totalitarians, and until that changes I don't hold out much hope.
The only slim hope I do have is that the powers-that-should-not-be are not nearly as intelligent or competent as they make themselves out to be. With any luck, they'll mess up their totalitarianism in grand style and collapse their system into nothingness.
Of course, such an outcome would likely also mean the deaths of hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions.
I have found reprieve and positive motivation in the spiritual -- not in organized religion -- but within a solitary form of Christianity. I mention this because I have come to the conclusion that all of what we are experiencing now ultimately stems from negative spiritual aims emanating from the highest of places -- or lowest, depending on your perspective.
Best,
Frankie
