Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 27

Deity is a person

When I think back across my conversion from (almost) lifelong atheism to Christianity, it seems clear that the biggest barrier was that God the creator is a person. 

Even in my youth I was prepared, even keen, to adopt abstract deistic principles, and assumptions about the directional or cohesive structure of reality...

But the idea of the creator as a person was an assumption that I ruled out - quickly, effortlessly - as obviously absurd, obviously childish. 

Yet now I regard creator-as-person as an absolutely foundational and essential fact (and assumption). 

Spawn of Hartley Hare?

My life seems to have been plagued by Hartleys; which I blame upon that archetypal Hartley: Hartley Hare - who I tentatively presume to have been a transdimensional and temporally omnipresent being; capable of exerting influence of many kinds, by many means.  

Such were my thoughts when I saw notice that our latest local Church of England Bishopess is yet another Hartley (Helen-Anne). The resemblance to HH is obvious:

Then there was, of course, that old fly-fisherman JR Hartley - whom I have mentioned before:

And I have also referenced Hartley Coleridge (who was born in the most boring town in the world, and whose erstwhile home I have stayed in) - eldest son of Samuel Taylor; who also has the look of Hartley Hare about him:

A malign presence in mid-childhood was the ubiquitous product Hartley's New Jam, especially its strawberry manifestation; which (from memory) was low on fruit, high on pectin; and relied heavily on various flavourings and preservatives and shocking pink food colouring. A typical Hartley-inspired product, as the makers signal by their almost demonic depiction of the Hartley-childrens' faces:

 If my experience is anything to go by; whenever you encounter a Hartley - beware. 

On the appreciation of beautiful experiences, truth-telling, or moral-acts... Doing Good is not necessarily "a good thing"...

A problem we have - a real problem! - is that "doing good" does not mean that good is done. 

Of course, in practice, this was usually only a loose-ish connection. But overall it made sense to talk in terms of virtuous or moral actions, of beautiful artistic products and performances, of truths (from science, philosophy, history etc) that were valuable of themselves.  

But nowadays there is a very substantial disconnect - up to and including opposition between Doing Good, and being good. 

To be blunt; a lot of the generally-accepted "good stuff" in life (especially the stuff that we get to hear about) is nowadays produced by people who are actively on the side of evil. 

This Is A Problem - and one that challenges the usual ways of thinking; not least because it often means that the bits of good which are done, are often/usually used for net-evil purposes. 

Such has always been the most effective form of propaganda - e.g. is the elements of truth within propaganda that make the lies believable. It is the experience of beauty that makes the ugliness of the message seem appealing and convincing.

Yet, at the same time; when the System/ Matrix/ Black Iron Prison mixes Good with its evil, truth with lies, beauty with vileness, virtue with manipulation; it also thereby somewhat undermines itself. So the combination is unstable. 

On the other hand, at the level of institutions; things have becoming more evil for long enough to show that this is not enough to cause self-correction. 

There has been no pendulum-swing back towards net-Good motivations. There are no grounds for complacency! - and it seems entirely likely/ possible that things will continue to get worse, as the underlying motivations of more and more participants continue to get worse.   

And when the civilization is totalitarian (as ours is) then any aspects of truth, beauty or virtue that require resources or organization, anything involving publicity or media - will normally and mostly be harnessed to the agenda of evil. 

Thus, in the spiritual war of this world, Doing Good (in an obvious and public way) is nearly-all on the side against God; and that which is truly motivated by Good tends to be invisible and unappreciated at a cultural level - maybe known only among the circle of family or friendship.

The situation is that there is still a sense in which truth/ beauty/ virtue are as real as ever they were; yet there is also a sense in which they have - in practice - been weaponized against God and Divine Creation. 

For this Not to happen, and for public-Good again to evoke inner-good; we moderns of 2025 must become more consciously aware of the situation, we must make discernments and choices. 

We need to be able to know what is good, and distinguish the good from the evil uses being made of it. 

Our thinking needs to be active and purposive; not passive, not dreamy-drifting. 

Returning to my recent experience of choral evensong... 

To give ourselves up to a contemplative-appreciative state of immersion in external "Good" - on the basis that external Good can-must-and-shall "do us good"; is actually, in practice, to open-our-selves to manipulation and exploitation by the system of evil. 

If, instead, we yield to the overall experience like floating in a warm bath, half-asleep, with eyes closed; we will be absorbing toxin through our dilated pores, even as our minds are beguiled! 

It is a matter of spiritual trust, and who can or should be trusted here-and-now. So long as there is a likelihood that the "provider" of Good experiences is on the wrong side in the spiritual war; for so long we must aim to exercise continual discernment. And be ready to repent when (as inevitably happens, sometimes) we fail to do so.  

Thoughts after attending sung Evensong at King's Bollege, Bambridge

I recently attended choral evensong at King's Bollege Bambridge - which is perhaps the most famous choir, and choral venue, in the world; thanks to its many decades of BBC world broadcasting on Christmas Eve.

They certainly lived up to their reputation, with a beautiful sound and extraordinary precision of diction and intonation. 

I was particularly fortunate in that the music was provided by what are - for me - the very best of choral music - viz that of the "Renaissance" era, including the English Tudor composers Byrd and Weelkes. 

The event provoked some interesting considerations. 

First, although it was a a liturgical event in a chapel; it was not really Christian, but a high quality classical music concert that happened to have free entry and a famously fine architectural setting. 

Consequently, a very high proportion of the very large "congregation" were tourists; and anyway I knew that the clergy and choir were not really Christian, but instead and inevitably mainstream Church-of-England bureaucratic-leftist.  

They have to be, because otherwise such a lavish and high quality event could not be provided (as it is) on almost a daily basis and for pretty much the whole year. 

This requires a colossal degree of planning, funding, and sheer organization that can only arise from institutions that are thoroughly (and successfully) embedded in the standard workings of the Totalitarian State, with its vast monitoring and regulatory apparatus. 

As well as the upkeep and maintenance of the chapel itself; the running of a choral school - and its recruitment and training of boys and adult singer, is an enormous work in itself, with traditions and practices spanning many decades - indeed centuries.  

The Evensong was therefore the culmination and continuation of a high civilization; which is itself absolutely dependent on the apparatus of the State. IN the past that State was Christian (officially, and to various degrees in practice). 

However; as of 2025 the UK State is integral to the Global Totalitarian System - with its overwhelmingly evil motivations, policies and plans. Even among the evil-states of The West, the UK is striving to become the most destructive in a specialist fashion, on an international scale. 

Therefore, the beauties of King's Bollege come at a cost, and that cost is high; not only in terms of money and resources, but in terms of all the above. 

The cost is one of willing collaboration in systematic evil... Of course, these costs are not all evil (nothing is), and those within usually justify themselves in that basis - such as, in this instance, the high aesthetic standards. 

But overall, overwhelmingly, and increasingly evil - for sure. 

In order to be allowed (and enabled) to put on high-level aesthetic events like the Evensong I attended; the elements that go to make it possible (the university, college, chorister's school, all manner of charitable and artistic groups); must all consent to (and, increasingly positively endorse) most of that large and increasing range of ideological programs that characterize the modern State - and which are innately hostile to God and divine creation and, of their essence, materialistic, reductionist, opposed to beauty and quality. 

There has been a Faustian bargain pursued by the academic and artistic Establishment for many decades; by which The System has permitted aesthetic (but not religious-spiritual) values to continue (including in a self-identified) Christian context in return for ideological servitude. 

But the scope of that aesthetic activity has inevitably been been shrinking overall - and the materialist-demands and value-corruptions have incrementally escalated.

Anyone who attends a church, university, art gallery, museum, theatre, or concert hall nowadays - is far more likely to be confronted by crude political propaganda, than high aesthetic or scholarly values. 

If current motivations and belief-realities persist, and trends continue, the only-possible, hence inevitable, end of this process will be one of spoilage and destruction of all that is beautiful. 

There are many and powerful external factors that would annihilate King's Evensong very rapidly and completely. Such things have often happened before.   

But even without destruction from the waxing alien imperatives of many kinds; since the civilization that makes it all possible is now consumed by self-hatred and a covertly suicidal impulse, then an end will come from internal factors. 

The paradox is that the many value-inversions and materialist metaphysics that had to be embraced by those people and institutions who make a King's Evensong possible; are exactly what will ensure that it becomes impossible, and will cease to happen. 

Benefit of the doubt? Supporting net-evil

A lot of self-identified Christians believe that it is right and "Christian" to give institutions and powerful persons "the benefit of the doubt" when they claim good motivations. Or even when they espouse bad intentions.

This is assumed to be good in principle or at least harmless.

Not so, because when an institution i corrupt, untruthful, net-evil, then to fail to discern such reality, to support it; is to join with the side that opposes God, divine creation, and The Good - and thereby oneself to become spiritually corrupted.

Surely we ought to support Good not evil? How can it be right to lend spiritual (maybe material) aid to Satan?

Why not set-aside manipulative and self-annihilating propaganda that tends to ur damnation. We should instead discern, and keep learning - and when we err, we should repent.

Biggles Learns to Fly, revisited

 About four years ago, I picked up secondhand a few of the first published Biggles books (by WE Johns), which triggered a serious revival of interest in WWI, then WWII, military aircraft. 

Since then, I have read many scores of memoirs and histories; and watched movies and documentaries by the dozens.

Going back to re-read what began it all, I find that, in particular, Biggles Learns to Fly holds up very well indeed; in terms of being an accurate account of actual experiences of the WWI pilots.

Naturally, since the books were aimed at boys, there is more concentrated adventure and humour. But everything described is based on reality, gathered from numerous sources - personal experience, discussion with colleagues, and published accounts.

The style and stories are also enjoyable, and emotionally powerful - stresses, horrors and deaths are there in proportion - and given proper weight.

Yet the essential heroism and chivalry of the pioneer pilots is dominant - as is right and proper.

Change and changelessness - the oldest philosophical problem

The earliest recorded ("Pre-Socratic) ancient Greek philosophers were metaphysicians who seem to have been focused on explaining change and changelessness - which was the most fundamental, and/or how the two were related and interacted*. 

Since change is so obvious, why did they feel a need to impute or explain changelessness? 

The answer is that if all is change then there can be no purpose, meaning, knowledge, no values - just a kind of chaos 

And then one needs to explain why we spontaneously and tenaciously assume that there are such things as purpose, meaning etc.

In sum; there is explanatory need for something other-than-change if we are to have purpose, meaning, values; there would need to be a sense in which there is both directional change and eternal preservation in reality. 

For Christians, in particular, there must be a way of understanding how eternal Good is possible when there is change. 

When we start (as I do) with the assumption of Beings as the "units of eternal reality" we need to explain how Beings - which are alive and conscious, hence dynamic and exist in time - can both change purposively and also eternally preserve that which is Good.

If Beings must both change and retain; this implies the expansion of Beings - because beings must accumulate as well as change. 

And if this is to be eternal, Beings must be expansible without limit. 

Tis is easily understandable by the analogy of development - that is, the development of an organism, for example an animal, from its formation by fertilization through to mature adulthood. Such a process of development includes both directional change and is also cumulative.

For instance, in an animal there is innate or instinctive behaviour which is "given"; and there is also learning added-to (and interacting-with) the instinctive; and learning must be retained, and accumulates. 

All that we need to add to the analogy is that the organism (or Being) potentially is able to continue this development without limit, and everlastingly. 

That cannot happen during mortal life on this earth; but it is (I believe) what happens in Heaven, when we are resurrected eternally. 

 

*I get this mostly from FC Copleston's History of Philosophy, reinforced by Rudolf Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy. 

The literal impossibility of putting theory into practice in Life

Theory is always and necessarily a simplified model of reality. Extremely simplified - because everything in the universe is left-out, except what is specifically included in the theory. 

If you think about it, this must be the case - the vastness and unboundedness of life (which is not really divided spatio-temporally, except into Beings) - otherwise there would be no point in having a theory!

A good theory renders graspable the most significant aspects (for the current purpose) of that vastly interconnected web of communication and interaction which is Everything. 

This is why even the very best theories can never be put into practice. 

It explains why we always come-up against the intractable problem of actually living by our understanding of God, creation and salvation.   

And, in Christianity, even the true-est and real-est and most-good theology cannot be put into practice in Life. 

Life is just so much greater than any theory!

When we try (and many have tried) to implement theoretical understanding, to live by The Book, The Rules or whatever - then it will fail.

This does not mean that theory is worthless, yet it never is the truth. It does not mean that theory is useless in some particular practice, yet theory should never be a blueprint. 

(For instance: Even the most perfect system of law is unjust; unless interpreted by a good and wise judge - who takes into account the many ways in which the law fails to describe reality.) 

However, we cannot just dispense with theorizing; because we live inside theory. Indeed, we live inside totalitarianism; which is a theory of everything, that denies any limitation, which tends always to encroach everywhere. 

This is because totalitarianism is rooted in negation, in the double negative values of a theory being against itself - a self-consuming, self-destroying theory of all. 

Our problem is to escape from the habitual thinking of the inculcated self-tyranny of this System, which theory we actually accept by socialization; because the totalitarian theory dominates public discourse, and we are compelled to live-by-it in most (and ever more) areas of life. 

So one value of theorizing is if it helps us break free from the mind-control of the actual-and-evil theory under which we Live. 

But whatever alternative theory we discover or devise (even the best imaginable theory of Christianity); we shall come up against the necessary fact that our theory is ultimately wrong because grossly incomplete; and cannot (as well as should-not) be implemented as a blueprint for Life and Living. 

The ultimate goal is perhaps always to go beyond theory to live in freedom in accordance with divine creation - not by theory but by intuition, divine inspiration, by knowing reality. 

In the meanwhile, in this mortal life on earth, we must continue to use theories; but should strive not be used-by theories.  

"The poor always ye have with you" - Jesus's harsh rejection of double-negative theology

John: 12: 3-8. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus is both impatient and decisive in his rejection of Judas Iscariot's attempt to impose the deadly trap of double-negative theology on Jesus's message. 

The danger of this demonic lure is evident. 

If Christianity becomes primarily a matter of dealing with the sufferings of this-world, there will be no end or limit to such activities, such a mind-set. 

To live for "compassion" is un-Christian and spiritually lethal; because it excludes the ultimate life-purpose of salvation*. 

"The Poor" of one sort or another (including our poor-selves, our own sufferings and needs!) will always be with us, their needs will always be present and, unless a higher and positive life-purpose is in place and dominant, will always usurp the purpose of salvation  - as the present self-identified-Christian churches exemplify with such horrible clarity. 

Only from the primacy of a commitment to following Jesus Christ through death to Heavenly resurrection; is it spiritually virtuous to consider the endless, boundless, intractable problems of this mortal life and world. 

And then only from personal love - because abstract, universal, unconditional love is another net to catch the devil's prey**. 

Make no mistake about it: we are talking about a Satanic snare! 

To live double-negatively in order to alleviate the ills of this mortal life is evil - even-more evil is to advocate this, to push an "altruistic" ideology.

Jesus's harsh, aggressive, repulsion of Judas's concern for The Poor should help make this evident. 

+++

* That it was not just Judas's hypocritical motivation for helping the poor that Jesus was rejecting, is evidenced by the larger scope of Jesus's explanation. 

** That promiscuous altruism and alleviation of the ills of this world is indeed a devilish trap, lure and snare; is indirectly suggested by the way in which not-Christians and anti-Christians are so addicted to making accusations of an un-Christian attitude; if or when any Christian person or institution fails to lend public support to a socio-political scheme that presents-itself as intended to alleviate some species of suffering. 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat...

 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat! 
Beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! 
All shall love me... and despair!

H/T - My wife; for the idea.