Shockwaves of the Eschaton

A Catholic considers Reincarnation, part 6

2011-06-15T20:37:00.000-07:00

I don't think it's possible to use the Bible to prove reincarnation. If it were, then reincarnation would have probably been a feature of the Reformation, and good "sola scriptura" theologians would have used the concept as a cudgel against the Roman insistence that there is only one life, and it should be spent being loyal to the pope.

All I'm trying to do is suggest that the Christian argument against reincarnation is scripturally weak--especially in light of the many Bible passages that are, at the very least, ambiguous.

Like Matthew 16:13-19, where Jesus begins by asking "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
The disciples answered, "Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others (say) Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

Talk about a teachable moment! If reincarnation was such a false doctrine, why didn't Jesus say "What are you talking about? Elijah and John the Baptist are dead! How could I possibly be one of them--what, do you think people actually come back as other people?? That's nuts."
Instead Jesus just says "But who do you say that I am?"

It doesn't prove anything, but it does beg the question: What did the first Christians really believe about reincarnation?

And then there's Matthew 17:10-13, where Jesus says "I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him. . ." followed by "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking about John the Baptist."

John 9:1 is also interesting. Here, Jesus is asked by his disciples (upon seeing a blind man) "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" The question clearly implies that the aman had some kind of agency prior to the present life that would have allowed him to sin. Again, Jesus answers the question matter-of-factly, without making any attempt to set the disciples straight about their apparent belief in reincarnation, or at least pre-birth.

So, again, this isn't the smoking gun proof that many people who are convinced that Christianity supports reincarnation would like it to be--but these passages raise questions, and they imply at least as much for reincarnation as Hebrews 9:27 argues against it.

Now, when you get right down to it, Catholic doctrine is not based (as so much Protestant doctrine is) upon scripture. Catholic doctrine is rooted in tradition as well--the argument being that the Bible was a product of Christian tradition, not the foundation of tradition. In other words, there are a great many things that Christians did and believed that aren't mentioned anywhere in the Bible, and yet they are still true.

So what does Catholic history and tradition have to say about reincarnation?

A Catholic Considers Reincarnation, part 5

2011-06-10T09:20:00.000-07:00

Let's begin by looking at what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, as it gives us the critical scriptural reference, Hebrews 9:27.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church article 1013

Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once." There is no "reincarnation" after death.

Well, here is the text in larger context, taken from the most revered Catholic English translation, the 1899 Douay Rheims Bible

24 For Jesus is not entered into the holies made with hands, the patterns of the true: but into heaven itself, that he may appear now in the presence of God for us.
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others:
26 For then he ought to have suffered often from the beginning of the world: but now once at the end of ages, he hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment:
28 So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation.

Taking this passage at face value, it does indeed say that we die once, and are then judged. I don't want to make any nitpicky or flimsy arguments here, but (on face value) how do we reconcile this with the story of Lazarus, or the young girl, or the son of the Ebionite woman, all of whom, having been raised from the dead by Christ, surely died again in the same body at some point. Reincarnation would hold that you die once per body, which is not necessarily excluded here--I would never base an argument for reincarnation on this passage, but it doesn't present an airtight argument against it. Even orthodox Christianity would argue that there is a "second" death at the final resurrection.
Aslo, I am not a Greek scholar and wouldn't pretend to be, but the presence of the word "once" three times in three verses, having slightly different nuances each time is suspicious. This commentator
http://144000.net/english/facts_and_myths_on_reincarnation.htm

believes it to be a mis-translation. I don't know about that.

My point is that this is not a particularly solid foundation upon which to refute a doctrine that may in fact be true, and if it is true, could have a profound effect on the way we live.

So let's see if we can use Scripture to defend reincarnation. Afterwards, I'll take a look at the tradition of reincarnation acceptance and rejection in history.

A Catholic Considers Reincarnation, part 4

2011-06-06T11:13:00.000-07:00

Again, where exactly does Christian revelation exclude reincarnation?

The General Audience of Pope John Paul II of Wednesday, November 4, 1998 contains a number of interesting points to consider, complete with scriptural citations.

First, he says that our bodies will share in the resurrection.

1. “Our commonwealth”, the Apostle Paul teaches, “is in heaven, and from it we await a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself” (Phil 3:20-21).

Just as the Holy Spirit transformed the body of Jesus Christ when the Father raised him from the dead, so the same Spirit will clothe our bodies with Christ’s glory. St Paul writes: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11).

So, here we have two references, one from Philippians, the other from Romans, but these passages refer in a positive sense to the concept of restoring the dead to life—they are not arguments against reincarnation (or any other particular manner in which the dead might be restored to life in Christ). Nothing here excludes reincarnation, as nothing here specifies that the changing of the lowly body takes place at any particular time—it has been commonly taught that this transformation takes place “on the last day,” when History is fulfilled, and not when any one person dies—if it did, there would not be any use for Purgatory, unless part of Purgatory were to include reincarnation.

2. From the start, Christian faith in the resurrection of the flesh has encountered misunderstanding and opposition. The Apostle experienced this firsthand when he was proclaiming the Gospel in the middle of the Areopagus in Athens: “When they heard of the resurrection of the dead”, the Acts of the Apostles recounts, “some mocked; but others said, 'We will hear you again about this'” (Acts 17:32).

Again—this section of Acts refers to a general distinction between life after death and no life after death—not a specific distinction between one-time resurrection and reincarnation. The Epicureans who lived in Greece during the Roman empire did not believe in any life after death, nor did the Stoics—what was at stake here was not “modes” of coming back into the body, but rather the question of life after death in general.

This difficulty has been raised in our time as well. On the one hand, even those who believe in some form of survival after death react sceptically to the truth of faith that clarifies this ultimate question of human existence in the light of Jesus Christ’s Resurrection. On the other, many have noted the fascination with a belief like reincarnation, which is rooted in the religious soil of certain Eastern cultures (cf. Tertio millennio adveniente, n. 9).Christian revelation is not satisfied with a vague sense of survival, although it appreciates the intimation of immortality expressed in the teaching of some great God-seekers. We can also agree that the idea of reincarnation arose from an intense desire for immortality and from the perception that human life is the “test” in view of an ultimate end, as well as from the need for complete purification in order to attain communion with God.

The pope states that reincarnation is a topic of fascination for people who want to live forever, and that the idea of reincarnation implies that human life is a test “in view of an ultimate end.” This could very well be said about Christianity. As for the need for “complete purification in order to attain communion with God,” this is the doctrine of Purgatory in a nutshell.

He goes on:

However, reincarnation does not ensure the unique, individual identity of each human creature as the object of God’s personal love, nor the integrity of human existence as “incarnate spirit”.

My question on reading this is “why not?” The “unique, individual identity of each human creature” is a property of soul and spirit, not physical characteristics. If God knows us as one-celled creatures, embryos, infants, toddlers, children, youths, young adults, middle aged adults and old people—and finally as souls separated from the body at death—then there is nothing keeping us from being unique “incarnate spirits” in a succession of earthly bodies—I guess my point is that even in our “one life” we inhabit a succession of bodies, and our relationship to God changes and grows as we change form and consciousness. How then, can reincarnation be excluded from this?

Next, we’ll look at the (apparently one and only) scriptural line on which the Church’s argument seems to hinge, and move into a historical survey of the ways in which reincarnation has been condemned, although not particularly well refuted logically.

A Catholic Considers Reincarnation, part 3

2011-06-04T08:23:00.000-07:00

What’s at stake? Salvation of the soul
It’s interesting to consider that what causes mainstream Christians to reject reincarnation is the very thing that causes Buddhists and Hindus (and esoteric Christians) to embrace it: the need to save or perfect the soul—maybe it would be better to say, “to allow the soul to attain that which is its divinely intended destiny prior to original sin” For reincarnation believers, it is the transmigration of the soul from body to body (and from Age to Age) that allows it to become more and more perfect; more and more fit to return to God. This would imply that a soul encounters a variety of situations in different periods of history and different circumstances of life—that the soul is actually karmically drawn to different circumstances of life based on the consequences of prior deeds, and these circumstances give the soul the opportunity to work out the unresolved issues of previous lifetimes. Christianity maintains that a soul incarnates once into circumstances which, while wildly diverse from person to person, provide allthe context that the soul needs to find Christ and become saved.

On the basis of this admittedly superficial comparison, it would seem that reincarnation makes more sense over the long run of eternity. Just as any one life seems to be a series of days punctuated by sleep, a soul-progress is a series of lives punctuated by death. It’s a real process rather than a one-shot roll of the dice. Moreover, the possibility of experiencing a host of life circumstances would seem to be a better way for God to train the soul than by simply inserting the soul into life as, say, the daughter of a sharecropper in Alabama, or the Prince of Wales. Nevertheless, what I’m talking about here is not a case of choosing which seems to make the most sense—what matters is what is actually true, and according the Church, reincarnation is false—so we need to look at this.

I’m going to present (in due course) a sampling Church’s arguments against it—what we notice in reading these positions is that there is no logically developed position for or against reincarnation. This is most likely because nobody really knows what happens after we die because we the living cannot speak with authority on the matter. There have been hundreds of fascinating reports of Near Death Experiences (NDEs), short excursions beyond the veil, and back. There are also a number of fascinating reports of the suffering of souls in Purgatory. I would highly recommend Nicky Eltz’s “Get Us Out of Here!” which is an account of the amazing vocation of Maria Simma (1915-2004), an Austrian lady who had regular contact with the “poor souls” in Purgatory, and prayed for their release. She offers rare insights into the nature of Purgatory, and the relationship we have with the dead.

The cases of Maria Simma’s dealings with the poor souls, as well as the NDE stories (none of which, obviously led to permanent death) fall under the category of private revelation, and are insufficient evidence for establishing a general rule. We can read them, we can think about them, we can pray about them, and we can come to our own conclusions—if we believe that the articles of faith prohibit us from agreeing with them, we can rely on the articles of faith. If we believe that the articles of faith do not prohibit us from agreeing with them, we still have to contend with tradition and authority. We’ll look at all these things.

What exactly are the articles of faith that cover this issue? The Apostles Creed says this:
“. . . I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.”

The Nicene Creed says
“. . .We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”

One says “body,” the other says “dead.” I’m not a theologian, but I know very well that the debate over what is and isn’t “resurrection” has been around for a long, long time. It was an issue that divided the Sadducees and the Pharisees. I know that there were those, even in Christ’s day, who thought that resurrection meant reincarnation. It is obvious that Christians today don’t believe that, but the distinction between “body” and “dead” in this English translation is interesting. Christians would maintain that there is no distinction—the dead, who die once, would resurrect in the same body they had when they were alive—but this presents a problem, because we are also told that it’s a “glorified” body. We know that Christ’s resurrected body was not recognized at first by his own disciples. So, if it is the same body, it’s so different that it can’t be readily recognized. We all know that the earthly bodies we possess have changed in state from cell to embryo to growing and aging primate—so what exactly is “the” body we resurrect in? Is it mineral? Is it psychic, is it spiritual? To use Rudolf Steiner’s categories, is it physical, etheric, or astral? We aren’t really told. St. Paul tells us they will be transformed into something supernatural—but the debate rages among Christians even as to whether that takes place at death or at some subsequent final judgment.

Anyway—the question is, does a belief in reincarnation violate either of these somewhat vague creed statements? The answer, I believe, is no. In the broadest of terms, these creeds and the doctrine of reincarnation are mutually reinforcing because they both say that after death, we become something other than worm food. So, the death of the body we inhabit is not the end of the soul. This would seem to be the key and essential point of commonality. We are not exclusively material beings—we have souls that do something after we die.

One of the most recent Church statements on reincarnation can be found in this
excerpt from the apostolic letter TERTIO MILLENNIO ADVENIENTE (1994)

Pope John Paul II writes this in paragraph 9

“. . . in man there is an irrepressible longing to live forever. How are we to imagine a life beyond death? Some have considered various forms of reincarnation: depending on one's previous life, one would receive a new life in either a higher or lower form, until full purification is attained. This belief, deeply rooted in some Eastern religions, itself indicates that man rebels against the finality of death. He is convinced that his nature is essentially spiritual and immortal.
Christian revelation excludes reincarnation, and speaks of a fulfilment which man is called to achieve in the course of a single earthly existence. Man achieves this fulfilment of his destiny through the sincere gift of self, a gift which is made possible only through his encounter with God.

This is hardly a formal, logical argument against reincarnation. It begins with the premise that because man wants to live forever, he thinks about reincarnation. With all due respect and veneration to the great John Paul II, this is the same premise that draws man to Christ, who promises us eternal life. Eternal life is the chief “selling point” for Christianity, so it can’t be portrayed as a faulty lure that leads people to believe in reincarnation.

In the second paragraph, the pope says that “Christian revelation excludes reincarnation, and speaks of a fulfillment which man is called to achieve in the course of a single earthly existence.” This is understood—the question is where is it revealed?

A Catholic Considers the Possibility of Reincarnation, part 2

2011-06-01T22:44:00.000-07:00

What’s at Stake? Truth.

In the final analysis, the reincarnation of souls either happens or it does not. For theists, this means that God either permits reincarnation or does not. Christians believe that an omnipotent God brought the world into being and assigned it certain operating protocols that under most circumstances are not violated. Yet the existence of miracles shows that God is fully capable of modifying the operating protocols for any reason He chooses. Thus it is certainly not beyond the capability of God to cause a soul to reincarnate. When Christians, especially Catholic Christians, maintain that God does not permit the soul to reincarnate, the important question is “why not?”

Compared to its philosophical and theological positions on such things as the existence of God, the definition of personhood, the existence of evil, and the absolute value of life, all of which are firmly grounded, logically constructed, and convincingly argued, the Church’s arguments against reincarnation are largely thin and anecdotal.

For example, it is generally asserted that reincarnation is a false belief (not an impossible thing, but a false belief) is because it leads people to neglect their duty to save their souls in this life. As the argument goes, people who believe in reincarnation think that they have endless opportunities to “get it right,” and that eventually they’ll keep getting better and better, life after life. This implies that the saving act of Christ was unimportant, because eventually everybody will achieve salvation, or will evolve to the highest pinnacle of soul development, however that is defined. Arguments of this kind, generally made by people who don’t really know what believers in reincarnation actually believe, do as much injury to the concept of reincarnation as similar arguments made by atheists against the Christian concept of being “born again” do, or as arguments against the Sacrament of Penance do. Every Christian has heard an attack like this against the profession of faith in the Lord: “Christians are all hypocrites—they can steal and lie all they want as long they say ‘I accept Christ as my savior” before they die, then they think they’re off the hook.” In a similar vein, even Protestants criticize Catholics for thinking that they can rape, murder, and rob all week as long as they go to confession on Saturday, and “get cleared.” These arguments only reveal how little the critic knows about the vital importance of accepting Christ as a personal savior, or of making a good confession of one’s sins. It’s unfortunate that Christians, who so often have to endure such over-simple criticisms of the precepts of their faith, would be so crude in their own assessments of complex ideas like reincarnation.

It simply is not the case that people who believe in reincarnation think that they “can get away with anything,” or postpone the obligation to live a good life because they have all the time in the world. If anything, the recognition that one must come back to live in a world that one’s own actions have helped create can foster a greater sense of ethical responsibility than the belief that one could, at death, simply “escape” the trials of the world. The law of karma (that one’s actions will create conditions that one has directly to deal with at a later point) cannot be unpacked from any serious characterization of reincarnation. Even Jesus tells us that we reap what we sow.

Next we’ll look at some specific Church statements.

A Catholic Considers the Possibility of Reincarnation

2011-06-01T15:36:00.000-07:00

An interesting conversation today has prompted me to do some out-loud thinking on a topic that has been a source of great interest and conflict for me since I began to think about it seriously roughly twenty years ago—and when I say “think about it seriously,” I mean think about it seriously—which is something different from “accept it dogmatically,” as many people do, “dismiss it dogmatically,” as many other people do, or decide that it doesn’t matter all that much, and simply avoid thinking about it, as many other people do.

The topic is Reincarnation, and the essential question is this: Does the soul of a human being incarnate in different successive bodies, or is life on earth a once-in-eternity experience? The question is an especially touchy one for Catholics like myself, because the notion of reincarnation is opposed by official Church teaching. According to the Catholic Church, and most Protestant denominations would agree with this, we are born once, we die once, and our soul is judged at death. On the basis of Judgment, we are rewarded with an eternity in the presence of God in Heaven, or are punished with an eternity of separation from God in Hell. According to Christian theology, the punishment of Hell is not “inflicted” upon us by God, but rather freely chosen by us in our refusal to accept the grace of salvation through the redemptive Love of Christ.

In Catholic theology, the matter is complicated somewhat by the doctrine of Purgatory, which provides the possibility that souls that are not completely destroyed by sin may become “purged,” and through certain trials, none of which are specified in Scripture or tradition, eventually gain entrance into Heaven. Purgation can take thousands of earth-years.

The dichotomy of Heaven and Hell is of course considered an absurdity by modern rationalists, and the doctrine of purgatory is considered an absurdity, if not downright heresy, by many Protestants, but this three-fold system of existence after death is the standard Catholic position.

I want to make it clear at the outset of this series of postings that I am a Catholic by birth and preference—God knows that my public stances on behalf of the Catholic Church have cost me friends and reputation, so these speculations are not the cheap musings of somebody pretending to be Catholic for the sake of promoting heresy under a false guise. I also want to make it clear that I’m not trying to make a case for reincarnation. The fact is that I don’t know what happens to us after death--this puts me squarely in the company of most relisious believers as well as most atheists. I have not been given any insights that could verify, even to my own satisfaction what happens to us after death. As far as I know from personal experience, we may reincarnate, we may get Heaven or Hell, or we may become a gaseous wisp of undifferentiated nothingness. As a thinking person who finds most Catholic theology elegant, compelling, and convincing, I think the Catholic explanation on life after death is vague and sometimes contradictory. I would say the same about most theories of reincarnation.

This is a high-stakes question. If reincarnation does not exist, then it is false to teach it. If reincarnation does exist, then it is false to condemn it. Those of us interested in the pursuit of truth have to take up this question honestly. If we claim that reincarnation does exist, we had better be clear as to why we make the claim—if we claim that reincarnation does not exist, we had better be clear as to why we make that claim. If, as the saying goes, sins of omission are worse than sins of commission, then those who dogmatically assert that reincarnation does not exist may be in greater danger of propagating falsehood than those who claim that it does. If a person honestly does not know, that person can choose to ignore the question entirely, or employ their powers of thought to form some conclusion. These next postings will be my attempt to do that.

The connection between Socialism and the Eschaton

2011-03-28T11:06:00.001-07:00

In the Conclusion to The Socialist Phenomenon, Shafarevich writes:

The idea of the death of mankind--not the death of specific people but literally the end of the human race--evokes a response in the human psyche. It arouses and attracts people, albeit with differing intensity in different epochs and in different individuals. The scope of influence of this idea causes us to suppse that every individual is affected by it to a greater or lesser degree and that it is a universal trait of the human psyche.

This idea is not only manifested in the individual experience of a great number of specific persons, but is also capable of uniting people (in contrast to delirium, for example) i.e., it is a social force. The impulse toward self-destruction may be regarded as an element of psyche of mankind as a whole.

Socialism is one of the aspects of this impulse of mankind toward self-destruction and Nothingness, specifically in its manifestation in the sphere of organizing society. (pp 293-94)

Shafarevich: More approaches to socialism

2011-03-28T10:58:00.000-07:00

Socialism can be seen as a theory of preparing and implementing revolution

Socialism can be seen as a manifestation of social structure based on compulsory labor

Socialism can be seen as the quest for social justice

Socialism can be seen as a special religion

Socialism can be seen as the consequence of atheism

Steiner's Threefold Commonwealth

2011-03-10T11:02:00.000-08:00

In contrast to the knee-jerk impulses of so many late modernists who seem to think that the answer to the problems of history has to be one form of socialism or another, we might consider the "threefold commonwealth" or "threefold social order" described by Rudolf Steiner shortly before his death in 1925.
In The Threefold Commonwealth (1923), Steiner goes so far as to say his vision of society would eventually come into existence as the result of human social evolution--it's hard to imagine how we would get there from here, short of a collapse of the system--but hey, that's as likely an outcome as any at this point. The question is "what will we make when it collapses?"

The way the threefold order works, in general terms, is that the community is divided into three equal but distinct spheres: The Economic (which deals ONLY with the distribution of goods), The State-political (which performs ONLY the function of guaranteeing of equality of rights), and Cultural-Spiritual which deals with education, culture, and the management of the abilities of the individual. Each order would be managed by something like a guild--each order negotiates with the other orders, but none can interfere with the proper functioning of the others' operations.

As hard as it is to imagine a de-politicized economy, or a de-economonized political system, to say nothing of a culture that isn't driven by economic or political concerns---it is equally hard to imagine the successful recovery of the botched civilization that we now inhabit.

Another approach to socialism: scientific (?)

2011-03-10T10:42:00.000-08:00

Socialism's reputed grounding in science is another idea that Shafarevich refutes pretty strenuously. All nineteenth century theories at least pretended to be scientific in order to gain traction with serious people, but on closer examination, early socialism was only "scientific" when compared to overtly mystical systems like religion.
Shafarevich points out that Fourier was clearly a mystical utopian with some manifestly un-scientific notions on natural history. As for Marx himself, using the simple "criterion of practice," Shafarevich points out a series of predictions made by Marx, on the basis of his "scientific" understanding of history, politics, and economics, that turned out to be patently wrong--as illustrations, he gives the disappearance of the nation, the disappearance of Jewry, the withering away of the state, etc.
"The basic works of Marxism are utterly alien to the most fundamental characteristic of scientific activity" writes Shafarevich, "the disinterested striving for truth for its own sake."
Socialism has actually been a political and social project animated by one core aspiration: the destruction of capitalism and bourgeois culture. Any success it has enjoyed in the historical world has far less to do with empirical truth gathering than with the task-orientation of its proponents.

Shafarevich's survey of "approaches" to socialism

2011-03-03T14:40:00.000-08:00

All references are taken from The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich, translated by William Tjalsma (New York: Harper and Row, 1975)

After laying out the "contours" of socialism, Shafarevich establishes the various historical frames in which the elements of socialism have been presented.

The first of these is "The Marxist Standpoint." Shafarevich writes:

Socialism as a state system is a specific phase in the historical development of mankind; it inevitably replaces campitalism when the latter reaches a definite level of development. Socialism as a doctrine constitutes the world veriw of the proletariat (itself engendered by capitalism), and at the same time it is the result of scientific analysis, a scientific proof of the the historical inevitability of the state system.(p202)

Shafarevich refutes the idea that socialism naturally follows from capitalism, pointing out that neither old socialist systems (the Incan empire) nor new (China, North Korea, and Cuba) had any identifiable connection to capitalism in their formation.

He also disputes the idea that socialism is necessarily dependent on the historical proletariat class, observing not only that few proletarians have actually been involved with socialist movements, but also that the appeal is better made to whatever disaffected minorities happen to be available. The historical evidence for this is that many proletarians in the west have always had clear bourgeois aspirations, and that the thrust of Marxist ideology is now generally directed toward disenfranchised peoples in developing countries, ethnic minorities in industrialized countries, and students everywhere!

Notes on Shafarevich's Socialist Phenomenon

2011-03-02T12:29:00.000-08:00

I thought I would post a few observations on this very interesting book, first published in 1975 by Igor Shafarevich, a Russian mathematician who was both a dissident in the Soviet Regime, and friend of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I first learned of this book from Solzhenitsyn's 1978 Harvard Commencement Address "A World Split Apart," and then tracked it down. This is the second time I've read it, and I think it's particular insights are particularly useful at this point in history--i.e., the end of history. There may be no saving the modern historical process, but something is going to have to be constructed from the rubble. I hope to use these postings to show why Socialism, an ideology to which we seem to be gravitating, is a really BAD idea.

Beginning with Chapter VI (the "analysis" part of the book), Shafarevich outlines the "contours" of Socialism, i.e., those features that all of the various socialist projects throughout history have shared in common. They are:

1) the abolition of private property
in the positive sense, this refers to the redefinition of all property as goods communally shared, or owned by "the people" in the form of state ownership. In the negative sense, it refers very directly to removing the legal title people have to their property through political action.

2) the abolition of the family
the centrality of the family is reduced through redefining marriage and gender identities, as well as destabilizing the ties between children and their parents

3) the abolition of religion
socialism is especially hostile to religion--not to the manipulation of religion, or the state-co-option but to the idea of a transcendental non-material reality.

4) communality, or "equality"
This refers to the destruction of established hierarchies for the sake of empowering everybody in the community. The strategy for enacting equality takes the form of abolishing privilege, and reducing the "proud" to a "humble" state.

These are the main ingredients to all historically identifiable socialist structures, from Plato up to the present day.

Unraveling

2011-03-02T12:12:00.000-08:00

It's been a long time since I've posted anything to this blog--it's hard to talk about the end of the historical world when you're actually in it. A certain mental paralysis takes over when you try to isolate any one thing that stands out as remarkable--it's all remarkable, weird, nuts, and unpredictable, at least in the fine details.

As the world continues to look more and more like the screenplay of a bad Book of Revelation movie, the one thing that seems clearest is that the 2012 phenomenon (whether it all happens in 2012 or not)is the collapse of the modern civilization.

Modernity "offered" to the world a number of grand projects:
1) get rid of God, superstition, religion, etc.
2) make sure everybody has equality in the political sphere
3) make sure the goods of the world are distributed in the most rational fashion possible

Assessing these things in reverse order, it's clear that modern civilization, while it has created the possibility for massive wealth, has not succeeded in producing a formula by which the wealth is really distributed equally or even efficiently.

There are great imbalances in how power is held and exercised, and the systems that were supposed to create political checks and balances have broken down.

Religion is now at the cutting edge of the revolutionary movements throughout the world.

There is no sign that any of these trends are going to reverse themselves--so what is left of the modern civilization?

And Another!

2010-11-23T13:22:00.001-08:00

It's been a bad month for the Japan Studies Field. The celebrated and controversial Chalmers Johnson passed away on the 20th at the age of 79. His contributions to the field are too numerous to mention in a short post.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2010/11/the_impact_toda/

The passing of a quirky giant

2010-11-21T09:08:00.000-08:00

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20101119f2.html

I'm a little late in learning about this, but Jack Seward, the funny and profane Japan expert passed away at the age of 86 on November 10th.His book The Japanese was the first book on Japan I ever read--what that has to say about the contours of my own career as a Japan scholar I don't dare speculate. He was a very smart, funny, plain spoken and outspoken commentator on Japanese society. He was definitely one of a kind and will be missed!

This is pretty funny

2010-11-21T08:45:00.001-08:00

Another good video about one of the absurdities of the novelty cascade

Can you feel anything?

2010-11-14T09:42:00.000-08:00

According to the standard version of Terence McKenna's timewave software, the world entered into a major novelty plunge (a roughly two-month long period of high unpredictability) around 6:00 this morning (PST). What this would mean (if it's accurate) is that we will not only encounter unprecedented events starting now, but increasingly strange unprecedented events.

What's actually on the horizon as this novelty plunge begins? Just looking at America alone:

1) Two weeks ago, a significant political reversal to the current U.S. presidential administration's agenda for larger and more intrusive government.

2) An unwillingness of the administration to admit this reality, reinforced by rhetoric to pursue its agenda (for the "American people") with even greater tenacity. The lame duck Congressional session will largely coincide with this novelty plunge. What WILL the majority do in their last months?

3) A recent announcement by the Federal Reserve Board that it will spend $600 billion MORE into existence, exacerbating an already unsustainable $13 trillion debt. This decision has drawn heavy fire from critics at home and abroad, as it is certain to create inflation in the domestic economy and put further brakes on global economic recovery.

4) A series of embarrassing diplomatic setbacks to the US in the president's recent Asian trip and G-20 summit. It is widely acknowledged that US is no longer the dominant player on the international stage. Remarks by the US president would indicate that this is a good thing.

And it's supposed to get stranger from here.

Very Funny Video

2010-10-26T21:09:00.000-07:00

Well this was obviously written by an insider!

http://chronicle.com/blogs/tweed/video-wednesday-19/27705?ref=nf

An Interesting Election

2010-10-26T14:30:00.000-07:00

As we get closer to election day, it's interesting to see how many Democrats are trying to convince the voters that they're really Republicans, how many Republicans are trying to convince the voters that they're really Tea Partyers, and how many Tea Partyers are trying to convince the voters that they're not mentally ill.

These will certainly be the most important elections in the history of the Republic because they may be the last! As much as conservatives are hoping that a new batch of conservative candidates will fix the country, it's hard to see our poor country as anything but broken beyond repair--and liberals and conservatives have each done their part to bring this reality about.

At this point, our eyes should be focused on rebuilding--our political system may turn out to be our biggest handicap in getting that done.

"In a suicidal manner"

2010-10-19T11:35:00.000-07:00

Thanks to my friend Chris Sparks for alerting me to this speech by former Czech president and celebrated playwright Vaclav Havel.

http://www.forum2000.cz/en/projects/forum-2000-conferences/2010/speeches/remarks-by-vaclav-havel-at-the-opening-ceremony/

Highlight:
"We are living in the first truly global civilisation. That means that whatever comes into existence on its soil can very quickly and easily span the whole world.

But we are also living in the first atheistic civilisation, in other words, a civilisation that has lost its connection with the infinite and eternity. For that reason it prefers short-term profit to long-term profit. What is important is whether an investment will provide a return in ten or fifteen years; how it will affect the lives of our descendants in a hundred years is less important.

However, the most dangerous aspect of this global atheistic civilisation is its pride. The pride of someone who is driven by the very logic of his wealth to stop respecting the contribution of nature and our forebears, to stop respecting it on principle and respect it only as a further potential source of profit."

Novelty History

2010-10-18T11:23:00.000-07:00

The biggest turn in novelty of the postwar period (this is evident in the graph I posted last week) was in 1968, sometime in February. Since that time we've been in a persistent downward gradient (on average) all the way to the end. 1968 was obviously a significant political marker in western Europe and the US, China was going through the Cultural Revolution, etc., but I've been trying to think of which event of the late 60s, early 70s was really enough to send the world careening down the hill of novelty. My best guess is the US coming off the gold standard, and many of the associated events of Richard Nixon's administration. He was elected president later that year,and his administration still serves as the benchmark for corruption, dishonesty and failed American dream aspirations--not that he was necessarily alone among postwar presidents in those areas of achievement.

He is blamed (and credited by some) for removing the requirement, in 1971, for US dollars to be backed by gold, which led, indirectly to our present situation, in which banks can just create money by creating debt because there exists no requirement to have the money backed by anything of value.

I did some snooping though, and found that Nixon only took us off the silver standard in 1971--the dollar had been uncoupled from gold reserve requirements since MARCH of 1968. The expansion of the global economy based on ballooning credit and an increased money supply has been underway ever since. In October 2008, we tumbled off the cliff, novelty-wise and it seems to have been linked to the mortgage collapse, an absolutely INEVITABLE consequence of the proliferation of funny money. Pretty interesting stuff.

The karmic revolution

2010-10-17T08:35:00.000-07:00

This Wall Street Journal article does good job of framing recent political developments in a way that is regularly ignored by media (and academic) commentators. The moral dimension of politics (and everyday life) is far too complex to be divided into the "Liberal= compassionate, fair, egalitarian, and good" and "Conservative= greedy, racist, and bad" categories that have become the tedious currency of the intelligentsia of the western world.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550243700895762.html
Nothing reveals the eschatological unraveling of our world more clearly than the train wreck that is our political life. I have a feeling that the cliff-plunge into novelty we will see next month will be directly related to the elections of 2010

How McKenna's Timewave works

2010-10-14T14:12:00.001-07:00

The Timewave was created by Terence McKenna (with software assistance from Peter Meyer) from the Yi Jing, a very old Chinese oracle that, according to McKenna's intution, also served as the basis for a calendar of immense duration.
The Yi Jing contains 64 hexagrams, each of which provides "counsel" to somebody attempting to gain information by either throwing coins or dividing yarrow stalks to arrive at the specific hexagrams. The hexagrams are made up of six lines, either broken (yin) or unbroken (yang). For example, here is hexagram number three "Zhun," which has been interpreted to mean "Difficulty at the Beginning."

When McKenna took all 64 hexagrams of the traditional King Wen sequence, and measured the "order of difference" between them--i.e., the number of line changes from hexagram to hexagram, he was left with a series of values between 0 and 6 that he plotted on a two-dimensional graph.

The resulting line then became for him a map of History, with the x (domain) measuring time in years, and the y (range) measuring the ebb and flow of novelty. As the slope increases, novelty goes down, as the slope decreases, novelty goes up. At a certain point, McKenna calculated, the graph hits "zero" at which he interpreted as maximum novelty. He believed this marked the end of the historical world.

A Patron of the modern mass media!

2010-10-13T08:54:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Maria Roozen-Roach for forwarding this great trailer about Blesed James Alberione, who reclaimed the mass media from Ahrimanic control--something we all have to do in our association with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wQbZhcGCi8&feature=related

Novelty Report, October 11, 2010

2010-10-11T14:49:00.000-07:00

At present the historical world is on a brief upward gradient (meaning a decrease in novelty, or an increase in habit), and will be, with only mild variations until a major and dramatic plunge into novelty around the 11th or 12th of November.

This month resonates with a roughly five year period that goes from October 1869 to March 1875. This was a period when modern civilization was at a high point--the midpoint of this period, the summer of 1872 (roughly corresponding to today)saw the banishment of the Society of Jesus from Germany, the passage of the Amnesty Act for defeated American Confederates, the legalisation of trade unions in Canada, and the completion of the Overland telegraph in Australia--all achievements of modern civilizations putting the unpleasant past behind them.

Keep an eye out for November 2010--again--this will be the biggest and most decisive novelty plunge since the collapse of the mortgage markets in 2008!

Time to post again

2010-10-10T18:41:00.000-07:00

It's been about a year since my last post, and I've been missing it. I've also been really busy, but there are so many things going on, I have to get moving on this again. For any of you who have actually missed reading my postings, I apologize,and for all newcomers, I hope you like it.

Two contrasting (?) takes on 2012

2009-10-11T21:00:00.000-07:00

It's interesting when skeptics go looking for a "real" Mayan to debunk the 2012 end-date. What usually happens is that the Mayan person says, "no it's not the end of the world--it's just the end of a world age," essentially affirming the validity of the date even as they say it's no big deal. In the case below Apolinario Chile Pixtun gets a dig in at those over-imaginative apocalyptic westerners as he insists that 2012 is not the "end of the world."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_mexico_apocalypse2012;_ylt=At54T7dhQUvO6canZ5CfM2Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNhY2Q0NDdnBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDExL2x0X21leGljb19hcG9jYWx5cHNlMjAxMgRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzYEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawMyMDEyaXNudHRoZWU-

Well shucks, maybe it should be, especially if this is what a sane, sober, non-apocalyptic events watcher tells us is coming. No, the world won't end, we'll just have "food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, and terror."

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=112452

Dotting the "i" s on the Brave New World manifesto

2009-10-09T09:44:00.001-07:00

Well, I wouldn't say this selection necessarily makes a mockery of the Nobel Peace Prize as so many modern recipients of the thing have already done that. I actually find it reassuring--I occasionally think that the world might actually be normal place, run by honest well-meaning grown-ups--it's nice to see that the Orwellian nightmare is proceeding apace, of only for the sake of aesthetics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6867711.ece

An awesome photo

2009-10-07T12:38:00.000-07:00

A visual recommendation on how to contribute to the salvation of the world, endorsed by a certain celebrated personage.

You gotta love the History Channel

2009-10-07T07:41:00.000-07:00

http://iknowwhatisawthemovie.com/trailer.html

The History Channel is well on board with the eschatological closing of the historical process, not only with inquiries into 2012, but this!

The occurrence of hyperdimensional travel, by shattering the notion of absolute time and space a la Newton, would be sufficient to close the modern world.
Pretty cool stuff.

Runaway roller coaster

2009-09-24T23:12:00.000-07:00

If there is any upside to the insanity that we're witnessing on a day-to-day basis in the media (and I suppose I'm referring to the evil blogs and conservative news outlets because according to the mainstream media it's a wonderful world) it is that we're being unburdened of the obligation to think about how we're going to plan our futures. The futures we once thought we might like to have aren't going to be there, which leaves us with the more authentic and more plausibly successful tasks of saving our souls and developing our post-historical consciousness.
Think, pray, meditate, get ready for disembodied existence. Pray the rosary and enter imaginatively into the landscapes of the mysteries--store up your treasure (with great specificity by thought and prayer) in heaven, and establish your homesteads (through imagery and meditation) in the outskirts of the Kingdom of God. It isn't going to matter in ten years what happened to the stupid TARP funny money, the mortgage markets, the stock markets, or anything else, so it really doesn't matter now, except as a wierd form of interactive voyeurism. We have to allow grace to purify our souls, we have to enter into conversations with the Lord conscious of our sins but confident in His saving power. There really aren't any good reasons to put off sanctity any more.

Novelty abounds

2009-09-22T22:05:00.000-07:00

It's taken me forever to get something up here, but I promise (especially now that I have three followers!) to be more faithful to this blog, and to cc in Eugene, I miss you man, how have you been?
We've been plunging into novelty lately, in an incredibly steep gradient that will not end for a long time--there will be several short climbs into habit/entropy before 2012, but for the most part, by my reckoning, we will never get back to anything as "habitual" as life was prior to September and October 2008 when the mortgage markets collapsed.
Of course it's a funny week as every week is now. We have the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board again announcing that the recession is essentially over (no way no how), President Obama is convinced that bloggers are going to destroy democracy so newspapers have to be rescued (hunh??) and more and more climatologists are backing away from global warming.
The number of 2012 websites grows by the week, and the UN is claiming that swine flu may lead to anarchy in the undeveloped world. Israel wants to bomb Iran and such illuminati as Zbigniew Brezinski are saying that if they try it, we should shoot down their aircraft, which must mean we secretly no longer like them doing our dirty work.
When people ask me if I really think the world is going to end in 2012, all I can say is "only if we're lucky."