Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 21

My problems about Easter

For recent readers, mainly. 

I refrained from posting anything about my churlish "Easter Problem" during the celebrations - because (apparently) these mean a great deal to many Christians. 

But anyone who wants to understand my own reservations about this feast can take a look at some previous posts.

(My own main celebration was to re-read the 20th, and I believe final, chapter of the Fourth Gospel. During this reading I was strongly struck by the conversation between the risen Jesus and Mary Magdalene - and I had the conviction that the original meaning of this exchange was that Mary would ascend to Heaven with Jesus, and at the same time as Jesus.) 

Yet another Easter irritation I haven't previously mentioned; is the way that I was taught as a child (and this is still, apparently, a frequent theme - even theologically) that Jesus's sufferings during his last days were the greatest any human has experienced; and indeed of a qualitatively greater scale and significance than any being has experienced. 

What is more, this assertion has often had a strong popular appeal - I think especially among women. 

Even as an infant-school-kid, but far more so now; this seems to me a spectacular misunderstanding, a gross misplacement of effort and belief.  

For a start, the assertion is unproveable because we can neither know objectively nor measure the degree of suffering. And this is a fact, despite that the geopolitical system of the entire modern world is rooted in "utilitarian" values that assume suffering (and also "happiness") can be quantified. 

Secondly; although the degree of Jesus's suffering seemed very bad indeed; even as a child, it seemed easy to imagine worse - especially in duration; and I was also able to imagine that some people (perhaps many people) had actually endured worse suffering. 

Thirdly, Jesus's suffering seemed irrelevant to me-here-now. 

I am nowadays aware of various theological explanations as to an alleged purpose for the extremity of Jesus's suffering; but as a child nobody seemed to know these, or else they were unwilling or unable to provide a coherent explanation for how Jesus's suffering "worked" as a way of doing something for me. At any rate, the impression was a bizarre insistence on Jesus's sufferings for no apparent reason*. 

It is only relatively recently, and especially since my 2018 intensive focus on the Fourth Gospel - that I have begun to see this as more than a mistake of emphasis; and instead evidence of a fundamental error concerning "what Christianity really is" - or, more accurately, "what Jesus did for us" - and how he did it. 

*Another such bizarre insistence from early childhood, was related to "rolling away the stone" at the tomb of Jesus. I got the impression the point of this was that moving the stone must have required superhuman strength, therefore proving divine intervention. It was not long before I began to wonder how the stone had been moved to block the tomb in the first place - that this must have been done by ordinary Romans - and this seemed to me to disprove the evidence for resurrection. I just mention this as evidence of how children's minds work, and the problem of counter-productive attempts at Christian teaching in a world where the church does Not have a monopoly, and where not many children get beyond a primary school level of "Bible stories". 

Muzak goes to eleven

A classic post in which William James Tychonievich shares his recent experience of taking brunch and drinking coffee in a couple of Taiwan's cutting-edge eateries. 

Coming soon to a café near you...

The mystery of soul mates - Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

Soul mates may be found in life - the special and unique relationship found perhaps with a best friend, a spouse, a favourite author; and in other areas of life. 

(Of course, soul mates that emerge within an existing family seem less of a mystery, although a mystery remains. Consider, for instance (as a public example), the special relationship between JRR Tolkien and his third son, Christopher - about which JRRT commented in several letters.)

There is a mystery about soul mates and how it happens. 

Any formula of "how" to seek a soul mate, "what" to seek in a soul mate, methods to "identify" a potential soul mate and the like; will very probably lead to disaster. Because such check-lists, algorithms and the like always place abstract models above the personal; and a soul mate is rooted in relationship between persons. 

(I assume that the personal is primary, and relations between persons are the "mechanism" - so abstractions are, at best, secondary and descriptive models of this reality.)  

There have been many (and, to me, unconvincing!), ideas around, about how soul mates discover each other, and happen. 

I think it actually, in practice, typically works something like this (bearing in mind that this is an abstract and categorical summary of a seamless development):

Awareness, Interest, Attraction, Love

This ripening must, of course, be mutual; must happen on both sides - although not necessarily "equally" nor "simultaneously" - whatever these terms might mean... Even complementarity doesn't capture it. 

The point is - at some level - soul mates exemplify a dyadic relationship that is a New Thing; qualitatively different from the sum of, or any selection from, its parts. 

If you have ever had a soul mate relationship (and these may not last all our lives, given the nature of this mixed and mortal world, permeated as it is with entropy and evil) you may perhaps recognise this progression. And how the relationship may build in this kind of way. 

(The building towards soul mates may be more or less rapid or slow - but there must, it seems, be this linear/ sequential quality to the development. Soul mates are, in this respect, an opposite to notions of "Love at First Sight". Awareness and interest may happen at first sight - but love must develop afterwards.)

"Soul mating" is - like most of life - much more like the development and maturation of a living being, than it is like the fulfilment of a blueprint. And that continues after the soul mate relationship is established - much more like an organic growth, than it resembles "following a plan". 

There needs to be preparedness on both sides - or it won't happen; yet the specifics relationships is not sought. There is a sense of destiny, but always needing personal choices and motivations.

The model I think best captures the phenomenon of soul mates for me, begins with two beings in a sea of other beings. And a chain of accumulating choices that begins when these two first become aware of each other. And it is easy for me to imagine how God the creator might initiate that first possibility of awareness. 

Mathematics and science

What is the relationship between mathematics and science?

Not necessary, not close - as any perusal of the major breakthroughs in the history of science will reveal. 

But people who are good at mathematics, and who don't know much about the full range of science, like to assert that all "real" science is mathematical, or that maths is the key to science, or that maths expertise means you are a kind of arbiter of science...

Maths is one thing; science is many other things - some of which overlap with maths. 

In a nutshell, science makes models of bits of reality. Some models concern reality is structured  - these are qualitative models, usually made of categories - and are not mathematical - or only seldom. Some models concern how the world functions, and some of these are mathematical. 

Maths is also a kind of model, but not a model of the world but a model of mathematics, Some bits of this mathematical model can be used to represent bits of science: i.e. some bits of maths can become scientific models (which represent bits of reality).

Unless you are a special kind of Pythagorean or Platonist; here is no a priori reason why mathematical operations should necessarily be the same as all the functional operations of real life - and they aren't.

We do not live in a reality underpinned by the abstraction that is mathematics - but a reality underpinned by God, who is personal.  

So; both ultimately and in practice, the relationship between mathematics and real science is variable and not close; although maths (numbers and calculations, statistics and mathematical models) has and is often been the basis of the varieties of pseudo-science - an activity designed to manipulate people, rather than to understand the work. 

 

Saturday Music: Hawaii 5-O by Arthur Two-Stroke and the Chart Commandos (1982)

 

Described as "Ska infused Northern Soul" (a popular genre at the time, around here) - this version of the Hawaii 5-O theme was released by Arthur 2-Stroke and the Chart Commandos in 1982. 

It reminds me of one of the best live gigs I ever attended around this time, by this group - in that fantastically atmospheric venue which was The Cooperage, Newcastle (an anciently built, brick-lined, vaulted cellar). 

I later worked alongside one of the trumpeters (Steve Nash, who hosts the Soundcloud site linked above) while I was training in a psychiatric hospital.  

The gradual process of understanding what made JRR Tolkien strange, unique, interesting, and creative

At the time of his death in 1973, not much was published concerning the nature of JRR Tolkien as a man - and a fair bit of what I knew and was publicly available was riddled with inaccuracies (e.g. William Ready's "Understanding Tolkien..." of 1969). 

I think that the present understanding of Tolkien emerged in a broadly chronological fashion, through four broad phases:

1. Historical

2. Philological

3. Roman Catholic

4. Tolkien as an unique genius 

The first major source of information was of an historical and biographical nature; especially the authorized biography by Humphrey Carpenter (1977) and the edited selection of Letters in 1981; and much has been added since, especially by Hammond and Scull's "Companion". This approach provides what might be termed Tolkien in his historical context. We learned such matters as the facts of Tolkien's life, marriage and family, his career, friends and colleagues, publication history of his works, the rise of his reputation. 

Although it had always been noted that there were influences in the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings that derived from his academic specialty; in 1981 came the seminal Road to Middle Earth, from TA Shippey. This (and further work since, from other scholars in the field) revealed Tolkien as philologist; and explained how the philological approach motivated and underpinned the fictional works. At this point we began to get a feel for Tolkien's inner life - because this way of working was distinctive to the particular tradition of scholarship of which he was so gifted an exemplar. 

From the 1990s, and especially through the work of Joseph Pearce; I began to become aware of a growth in scholarship that recognized JRR Tolkien as a devout Roman Catholic. This has since grown considerably, and it can be seen that there are many characteristically Catholic themes and perspectives throughout Tolkien's work. 

These three approaches all regard Tolkien mainly as an example of some broader category: man of his time and class, man of his academic speciality, man of his church. But perhaps it was not yet clear what made Tolkien his own unique self. 

It was after reading Verlyn Flieger's A Question of Time, and being stimulated to read Christopher Tolkien's History of Middle Earth that I began to develop some idea of his father's distinctive innermost nature. This is an extraordinary resource, and different people will respond to different aspects. Here I speak for myself. 

I began to feel an inner perspective when studying the very close-up and empathic exposition of the writing of Lord of the Rings. I was also affected by some of the factual material on particular characters and races - Galadriel, Morgoth, Sauron, the Elves, and others. 

But mainly, it was due to the semi-autobiographical qualities of the Notion Club Papers that I began to realize that Tolkien was an unusually inner-motivated person; exceptional in the strength and dominance of his imaginative life. 

Here were serious and engaged discussions of mystical, paranormal, supernatural and magical phenomena of many kinds - from personal experience, seemingly - and sometimes confirmed by Christopher Tolkien's notes.  

This domination by an inner perspective was, I think, the basis of Tolkien's genius; indeed, I then began to realize that this was a defining aspect of genius. 

For me at least; my understanding of Tolkien has traversed a great span. Starting from the rather dull, typically Oxfordish, reactionary, and narrowly-opinionated character of Humphrey Carpenter's evaluation...

And going all the way across the spectrum to my current picture of a man who experienced extremely strong inner drives, vivid imaginative pictures, powerful emotions, and extreme mood swings. 

Note: Cross-posted from my Notion Club Papers blog.

Explaining ourselves away...

It is a strange but recurrent feature of Mankind, that we are so often trying to "explain ourselves away" - to conceptualize our selves into insignificance. 

This happens in many ways - and in many times and places; yet it leads always and only to incoherence - so that it seems we are dealing with some deep, and probably wrong, impulse. 

Nowadays, the mainstream and dominant mode is to explain humans out of existence by assuming that particle physics is the ultimate explanation of everything. Ultimate reality is assumed to be unalive - consisting of particles, waves, forces, energies and the like - and biological life is explained away by these. 

The ultimate sense of elf, of our sense of aliveness, consciousness, beingness; is explained away by biological explanations that make these into secondary epiphenomena, or perhaps unreal delusions. 

The soul is explained away because "undetectable" by a science that excludes the soul a priori! 

But humans have been explaining themselves out of existence for much longer than the era of materialistic science. Human consciousness seems, indeed, to derive an almost pleasurable satisfaction from hammering home the unreality of itself!

Many religious traditions include a "higher wisdom" by which "the self" - i.e. the conscious individual stating this theory - is ultimately un-real, a kind of self-delusion; or else it is a distorting evil, that ought to be got-rid-of.  

Theorists of Christianity, and some other religions, may likewise generate explanations that all-but delete the significance of the human being who is doing the explaining. 

The ideal of such a speaker, writer, or thinker - seemingly becomes the negation, perhaps deletion, of himself; a striving towards removing him-self from the picture, except as a tool of God or worshipper of God... 

This is something that would surely strike us as bizarre and insanely incoherent; if it wasn't so common, and if we ourselves had not felt the same at times.   

However, the fact that we all sometimes feel this way does not make it true or good! 

The self-deleting consciousness does not make sense as a description of reality; but it probably makes sense as the expression of various fundamental desires that are wrong. 

These include the desire to deny our ultimate personal responsibility for participating in reality - we cast ourselves as some kind of mixture comprising victimhood, and humble slave.

Another aspect involves life-rejection: the covert desire not-to-be; which is probably most often a desire not-to-be conscious, not to be aware of our-selves and the world - a desire to escape wholly and forever from suffering.   

Another reason for explaining ourselves away, seems to be the dishonest desire to manipulate others. If we can make a compelling picture of reality that is what we personally want; yet we are able to remove ourselves from that picture - concealing our participation in it - then we may hope that others will accept the picture and we will get the benefits of that structure; but not the responsibility for its problems, and we can escape the blame for its failures.  

If some being completely other than ourselves is 100% responsible for the world and the human condition (including the grievances of other humans); then we ourselves have zero responsibility. We can support a particular state of affairs as being wholly external to our-selves. 

Or it may be simply expedient for some group perspective if we exclude all human consciousness, will and choice from the theories that we use to manipulate the world. If "science", for instance, is presented as if it was a body of knowledge independent of humans - then "!science" can be used to make life more comfortable and convenient, less wearying and painful - without any personal responsibility for the degree of dehumanization, exploitation and destruction that this entails. 

Whatever the reason - good or bad - that we have for explaining ourselves away, for removing human consciousness from our picture of reality; it is untrue and dishonest. 

And for a Christian; untruth and dishonesty are sins that need to be repented if we are to desire and be fit for Heaven... 

In other we need to know all forms of "explaining ourselves away" as sins, and need to acknowledge that they are wrong. 

Perhaps we should all try to remember that; when we next engage in explaining ourselves away - probably in the next few minutes, or hours! 

NOTE ADDED: I consider this "explaining oneself out of the picture" to be one of the principal motivations behind the powerful tendency towards abstraction, in contrast with the teachings of Jesus recorded in the Fourth Gospel; which has afflicted and dominated Christian theology - apparently since soon after the Ascension.  

Direct knowing is the Only knowing (Anything we do not grasp immediately, can never be known)

Human consciousness has changed over the generations; so that now we no longer understand language, pictures, or "symbols" in general.

This is obvious everywhere. It does not matter what is said, shown or expressed; people cannot understand it spontaneously. 

In the past it was Just Obvious to (almost) everyone, what things meant - but not any more. 

Things that used to be common sense and obvious, we are unsure about, they become subject to debate, to the application of rival theories and explanations - and once that has happened, we no longer know.  

Learning, discovery, understanding - came all together; and from outside.  

This is what "inspiration" properly means: knowledge was as if (but in a sense literally) breathed-in, imbibed from externally - perceptions came already-packaged with their meanings.  

The same has happened to the world of spirit and religion. Some people still have what they are confident are religious experiences, spiritual visions, "contacts" with other beings. 

Some people have paranormal or supernatural experiences - contact with the dead, ghosts, telepathy; do magical things like spoon bending; report out of body experiences; have extraordinary coincidences/ synchronicities; see UFOs or explore crop-circles... All sorts of things. 

And some people, at least, can - by methods such as training in meditation, developing habits, focused attention, seeking altered consciousness; or by "systems" such as ritual magic, alchemy, astrology, Traot cards etc - have extraordinary experiences. 

These things are possible and happen to some people - yet the people do not know what they mean. 

People do not know what ordinary everyday experiences mean; and they do not know what religious/ spiritual/ paranormal experiences mean. 

The meaning is the problem. 

They may spend their lives trying to understand what their experiences mean. And this applies no matter how strange and overwhelming are the experiences! 

Philip K Dick's life was changed by a series of intense religious experiences; but after eight years of intensive and sustained attempts to understand what it meant - he died without finding-out.     

This is how things are for people here-and-now. 

The question for Christians is why would our good, loving, creator in Heaven have made us and the world, such that we do not understand our experiences? 

There must be a reason why God has made matters thus; and it must be a good reason - a reason for our own good.  

I think God's intent and hope is that we cease to try and understand things indirectly - that is, via language, visions, symbols, and experiences; and instead base our understanding upon what I have called Direct Knowing - which is simply that which we know without intermediary. 

What we can know must therefore be grasped in one go, as a whole - without explanation, without interpretation, without reasoning.

This means that we need to stop looking for understanding from other things; and instead turn our attention to what we do know. 

My model of this is that we have a conscious and personality self, which is what we are spontaneously aware of; and which "observes" the world via symbol, language, pictures etc. 

But we also have a primal self, which knows directly. It is this which is eternal, which is divine (albeit very partially so compared with God); and this primal self is what is in communion with the Holy Ghost   

If we are to know, we must turn our personality self towards our primal self - and discover what it knows.   

I think we always know unconsciously what the primal self knows directly - and our task is to become aware of what we already know. 

The knowing of the primal self is very simple indeed. It is like a plus or minus applied to the world; it is a discernment. 

What the primal self knows, it knows in a single grasp of thought in which understanding is built-in. 

What this seems to mean, is that to know anything, understanding must come with discovery. 

And if anything is discovered that we do not grasp immediately, then we can never know it. 

No matter how much we try or for how long; we will be stuck forever at the level of inconclusiveness and ambiguity. 

 

The two-fold mainstream modern critique of the beliefs of traditionalist Christianity (and, theoretically, any other religion) - Is it the main cause of Christian destruction and assimilation?

For a long time (in intellectual circles, well over a century) it has been common in the West to criticise the beliefs of Christians, in two ways: that they are wishful thinking; and/or that they are self-tormenting delusions. 

Wishful thinking

Christians believe things, such as a happy life after death, because these beliefs make them happy. The beliefs are not true, but believing them is personally gratifying - and this is why they are believed. 

On from this; Christians believe some things because these beliefs lead to the kind of society that Christian-type people want. 

(Some other - not-Christian, maybe atheist - people want this kind of society as well; and these people may pretend to believe what Christians affirm, in order to get this kind of society.) 

Christianity is therefore like a kind of daydream - Christians are foolish people who dream-up stuff they would like to be true, then make themselves believe it. 

Self-tormenting delusions

Christians are mentally ill (either spontaneously, or because their religion makes them so); and therefore torment themselves with needless delusions that make them miserable. 

Major examples include traditional Christian moral restrictions in relation to sex and sexuality. 

On from this; unless they are prevented, Christians will inflict these misery-inducing delusions on the rest of society. 

Christianity is therefore like a kind of nightmare - Christians are a mixture of self-destructive lunatics and psychopathic sadists, who make themselves ill with sick fantasies, then try to make everyone else as insane or depraved as they are. 

These attitudes are - as I said - very common; either individually or, most often, both-together. They may seem - and indeed are in some ways - contradictory! After all, how can Christians be both happy-clappy wishful-thinking idiots, and at the same time crazed self-tormented tormenters? 

But we are dealing with attitudes to Christian beliefs, not logic; and the attitudes are based on the assumption that Christians beliefs are wrong, and seeks various explanations of why. 

And once it is assumed Christians are wrong; then it is not irrational to suppose that there may be a variety of explanations, applicable to different people, or at different times.   

The Big Problem with this very common, indeed mainstream, critique is that it is self-destroying. It is applicable not just to Christianity, but to all - and apparently all possible - beliefs.

In effect psychology is thereby made the bottom line explanation, psychology gets used to explain everything else.

(This is, of course, an assumption - it is certainly neither evident nor obvious that psychology is the most profound of all forms of knowledge: supreme over all others!)  

But then what explains psychology? It turns out that psychology explains psychology!...

Our choices of belief (apparently) depend on our psychology, and our type of psychology depends on the psychology of belief - on environment (type of society, geography, historical era, social class, sex etc.); on heredity including genetic inheritance etc. 

It's circular, all-inclusive - meaningless. 

If psychology has "proved" that traditional Christianity is non-objective; then psychology also "proves" that psychology itself is non-objective. 

This means that psychology could not really have been the cause that has specifically disproved traditionalist Christianity. 

That this self contradicting and circular psychological (or, mutatis mutandis sociological/ political) critique was incoherent; was pretty much the anti-secular critique of mainstream modern secularism made by the likes of GK Chesterton and then CS Lewis in the early and middle 20th century. 

GKC and CSL believed, or hoped, that this clarification of the inadequacy of anti-Christian critique would then protect traditional Christianity and its churches from destruction. But this did not happen - in the event the churches and Christianity have both been eroded and corrupted. 

Furthermore, all positive non-religious ideologies have been eroded and corrupted: nationalism, socialism, "back to nature" agrarianism, and all the utopias proposed from the 18th to mid twentieth century, have all lost their power and integrity - have either dwindled to socio-political insignificance (e.g. agrarianism); and/or have become co-opted into mainstream secular totalitarianism (nationalism, socialism) and become negative and oppositional in their motivations.   

The anti-Christian intellectual crusade was real and powerful; and Christianity and the Christian churches have indeed been largely destroyed. But all kinds of belief in any purpose or meaning in life, personal significance, and any reason for life rather than non-life or death - have also been destroyed.

Furthermore, it is not just churches, but all functional social institutions that have been diminished and assimilated to a monopolistic bureaucracy - the legal system, economic activity, science, universities. police and the military; even clubs and hobby groups... 

Nothing has been untouched by the institutional trends that afflicted the churches. 

 

So, it seems that something else - some other big causal factor - was in fact going-on in the destruction of Christian belief; and that "something else" has affected secular ideologies in much the same way it affected religions. 

My belief is that this causal-something-else was in fact the developmental change of human consciousness -  broadly on lines as outline by Rudolf Steiner then Owen Barfield; and this is a Master Idea (a metaphysical assumption) that has permeated this blog for the past decades.

Of course, that too, is an assumption - but the advantage I claim for it, is that it is explicit and I acknowledge it is an assumption. 

In public discourse, metaphysics is important - but hardly anything else is

Whenever I mention (and this happens A Lot) that is is non-optional that mainstream modern people should explicitly discover and critique their own fundamental assumptions (i.e. we need to do metaphysics); the response comes that most people just can't do this. 

It isn't true. Masses or ordinary people have done metaphysics at many times and places in human history, and this is recorded. Of course they didn't so it in the exact way that modern people would - but they did it. 

Much of this was in terms of religion and theology. It was complained, for example, that the streets of Constantinople were at one point clogged with masses of people arguing about the fundamental nature of Jesus Christ. 

But even as recently as the middle 20th century, there was a lot of public mainstream debate in journalism and books (also novels, plays, movies) concerning "existentialism" or the nature of reality -- to the point that such discussion was part of fashionable youth cults such as the Beats and Hippies. 

None of this went anywhere much, because it didn't go deep enough and got mixed-up with institutional imperatives and incentives. However, the record shows that people can and did discuss fundamental assumptions in a way that almost never happened in the past several decades - so that people have come to believe it is nigh impossible!

. 

Yet things have indeed changed, with the corruption and collapse of public and institutional discourse; which is now rotted by corruption and dishonesty to the point that it does more harm than good. 

In the past, it made some kind of sense to claim that stuff like science, education, law, economics and the like were important; but now these are important mostly for the harm they inflict and the malign brainwashing induced by participation. 

What this means is that  not only is metaphysics important, but it has become just-about the Only important thing - in public discourse. 

The rest of public discourse in 2025 is light-entertainment at best - passing the time between our birth and death-annihilation in a more-or-less pleasant or exciting fashion; but the norm is that these social domains are a cancer on human existence and Western civilization.   

It's time people stopped making excuses! Most people consume vast quantities of their finite resources and money, and their limited life-energies, on malign trivialities or futile self-aggrandisements. 

It's time more people started doing what they must do... 

"Must", at any rate, if this mortal life is not to have been a literal waste of time; leading on to a post-mortal existence in which such people have - on the basis of their own unexamined and false assumptions - chosen something much worse than this life.