In the world of physical science, the big bugaboo for theoreticians simply has to be: but how did something come from nothing?  Without an answer to that question, all else comes into question.  Most, however, wish to avoid it and for good reason.  Forget about that man behind the curtain!

In Anthropology we ask a similar question: who set the rules?  When we look at primitive societies, it is hardest.  Did some old Mother Goddess type start us on marriage and kin and etiquette? -for all societies have these notions.  Did some old patricians patch together a powerful deity in their own (overblown) image?  Most, again, dare not tread there and leave it to the big picture guys, those theorists and philosophers from the 19th century (more or less) who are common names: Freud, Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Frazier.  We then happily go on our way with more manageable theses.  And woe to those who go to the really big picture guys - the prophets of old.  Then you are shoved rudely off the reservation into the misty world of theologians.

But almost everyone has their own theory about who's running the picture now - except it is not so clear when put under the microscope.  Today, most of the somewhat bigger picture sociologists run the neo-Marxist gambit: we are controlled by those "in power."  Hah! you say.  That is a tautology!  If they are in control, obviously they are in power!  For Marx, it was fairly clear, though - in his day they had monarchs and a handful of oligarchs who were fairly easy to point to.  The "neo's" of today have to run a more subtle machine: with democracy and multiple levels of power that are increasingly global in scope, they can only pick and choose from a few examples and then try to convince us they have given us the big picture.  And yet: GM is a big money global power, but did it decide on abortion rights?  On no-fault divorce?  On an increased questioning of authority, particularly religious authority?  

No, they did not.  They co-opt such movements for their profits, but they do not originate them.  Instead, we are thrown back on the same  frustrating head-scratching that "something from nothing" always brings.  Yet it is of utmost importance.  It may not matter to us in daily life who, what, or whatever popped off the Big Bang, but it matters a whole heck of a lot who is controlling how we think, even and especially if we don't even know we are being controlled.  And we are.

Compare how we were in 1950's America with how we are today on anything from  child rearing to sex to the meaning of life.  The change had been so drastic that it is hard to convey to younger people.  To make it simpler, we can look at one isolated and perhaps unimportant change: the view towards gays and gay marriage.  In the 50's the very act was considered immoral by almost everyone, from government to church to mom and dad.  By the 70's, after the cultural revolution of the 60's, America at large grudgingly began to accept "them" as strange, but with a right to do what "consenting adults want to do behind closed doors." (I put that in quotes, because that was the progressive mantra of the time).  We had a lull during the AIDS epidemic in the 80's, but then gay rights really picked up steam.  By 2000, all states but Texas had annulled their sodomy laws, with Texas not far behind.  And then, like magic, a few states were forced by judges against the will of the electorate to accept gay marriage, unthinkable by definition only 30 years before.  Now, within a 2 or 3 year time, not being for gay marriage is almost unthinkable, unless you don't mind being called a fanatic, a bigot and a hater.  

Now, how did that all happen?  Who actually decided?  For even that first judge who forced the rule would not have thought of doing so in 1960.  We call it evolution, but that says little.  Who pushed us in this direction with such speed?  It was not just the "gay lobby," for that is too small - their arguments in 1960 would have fallen on deaf ears.  No, we had been prepared for this, and then forced unwillingly, and then magically we chose to do an about-face.  Normally, such changes happen after disasters, lost wars or acts already thought to be morally reproachable - like the Nazi Holocaust (or the lack of civil rights).  But we have nothing of the sort here.  Still, there was a push towards this that had such power that it changed bedrock views in less than 50 years on a national scale.  That push took a fantastic amount of energy; surly we can then find the source of this social sun.

But it is a hard thing to find.  Unlike the German-Jewish relationship, or civil rights in this country, there is no historical precedent, or at least one most have cared about or paid attention to.  Some will call it "social evolution" but that begs the question: who or what is causing this evolution?  For in this case, it came apparently from out of the blue, with no real recourse to the past or to accepted reason. Reasons are being made now and will be believed, but they are not real, in the sense of having continuity with our greater notion of reason.  These types of sex acts, approved or otherwise, never before were paired with marriage.  It is not logical, nor another Constitutional given such as racial civil rights (although again, that claim is now being made and is beginning to be believed.)  From where, oh where?

And so, we might say that a lot of what we believe is manufactured. To find out by whom would be of great interest, as mentioned, but it seems this is lost in some kind of global or national fog.  Sooner or later, however, we can pinpoint a source, usually some time after the 'invisibles' have planted the idea.  Those who don't like the idea call these sources "demagogues," while those who agree call them "leaders."  In either case, we should be careful how we listen.  Our will is being turned, and we should think first before we allow that to happen.  Sometimes, though, we cannot resist the Pied Piper.  Sometimes it does seem as if an idea really came from out of the blue, a message from a divine source whose time has suddenly come.  But in Nazi Germany, it was not very divine.  In Rome, or India, or Arabia, perhaps there were times when the message WAS from a divine source.  How to choose?  Are we being coaxed along an evolutionary road by divine power, and if so, can we always tell when it is divine or when it is something more diabolical?  

There is one thing that is certain, however: we are indeed being pushed very quickly along a particular road, and we really need to know by whom or by what and to where it goes - soon.   FK 

Finishing Wicker's book, we see her trying to, or really pretending to, get something out of her experiences with the magic people, those millions in America who have no religion but know something is afoot.  I know she is pretending because I, too, write books and one is always tempted to follow the classic narrative of foreign travel: to leave home and journey to a strange land and return with deep knowledge.  It is the Quest myth, and I was tempted to use it in my autobiography/travelogue "Dream Weaver."  I resisted, however, and instead told the truth - that after all that travel, I still did not know my butt from my elbow, but had come up with some very interesting lifestyles and theories.  I was blasted for it by some critics who demanded that I reach a synthesis of sorts.  Since I did not, I could only be shallow.  But the fake synthesis would have been easier - as it was to Wicker - whereas the truth is hard.  Most of us, like myself, do not know our butt from our elbow when it comes to the Big Picture.  

And so the trouble with the New Age, with new religion and with magical thinking in general.  We demand that there must be an answer in the void, a place in that great eternity where we can work the outer and inner worlds like a lathe if only we reach the proper level of understanding, just as I did when learning to read the floor in archaeology.  And in truth, at least my truth, you can; shamans, for instance, can work magic, but in general they do not work as well as penicillin. Prayer works, too, but it is a touchy on/off affair.  Praying for a job usually only helps if you also LOOK for a job.  And the cosmos will always lead you to your destiny, but you will probably not see it until it is well in hindsight, on your death bed or beyond, and then it might well be different than you thought.  The real and open truth is that we don't know what's out there.  We are tuned to a world that we can physically manipulate, and as we get better at manipulating it, the more we become attuned to it, to the exclusion of everything else.  But still - even those from different times and cultures could not (by in large) clearly see into the void.  

Or at least not far into it, and that is the problem.  Let's take an example: if you were extremely nearsighted and tried to shoot a target at 5 feet away, you could probably do it.  At 20 it's getting pretty iffy, and at 100 it's really a shot in the dark.  You know something is out there, but what are your chances of hitting it when you can't see it?  So it seems to me is magic and, on a broader scale, religion.  For the latter, we are taking a broad overall view, but that view is a second hand one of things that we have never seen.  It is described as best as can be done by the prophet or mystic or shaman who has gone out far, but his references are limited and so, too, his own understanding.  As for magic, that works on a practical scale and must be more exact.  For that reason, it seldom sees the forest for the trees and so cannot relate a particular action to the whole.  There is danger in that - let's say, the magician is shooting for a target that he knows is somewhere out there, so he blasts away.  Unfortunately, there is a school playground beyond the target that he cannot see, and suddenly someone is in very big trouble.  


The metaphor is not a great one, but I hope the point is made.  The depth of reality is limitless, but most of us are using only very limited tools.  We can experiment and extend our tools - to keep the metaphor, get a pair of glasses - but still, we can only go so far.  We can not know, or few of us can anyway, the whole.  We can grasp limited concepts that expand our vision of reality, but still they are limited.  We can play around with forces that are not part of our norm - but we don't really understand them.  We are still shooting in the dark, with all that that implies.


I have written essays on synchronicity, on real ones that have come into my life.  These Jung defines as "meaningful coincidences" but more often than not we cannot grasp the meaning.  Every now and then one smacks us upside the head - like a sign that we barely notice that says "last gas for 100 miles" before we run out of gas 50 miles later.  That is to say, there are real signs, and there is a greater truth or truths.  But which is the true sign?  Which is the greater and which is the more limited vision, one that we might see so hazily that we get it all wrong?  For magic, it must work, or work the wrong way, or not at all.  We can end our delusions on that if we are honest about it.  But for religions: aren't we called to faith without proof?  It is often the only way to greater truths, but at some point, mustn't  we be honest with ourselves and ask: has it worked in my life, or worked well?


What I called the New Revolution has started with a lack of results from the old religions, or so it has seemed to many.  What we have now with our new magic, if our author Wicker were honest, is mostly a bunch of wishful thinking masquerading as wisdom.  It is not good enough.  There is a world more magical than magic out there, but our vision must be clear and we, honest with ourselves before we take in the new.  For the greater vision, the old religions have lasted for thousands of years, and for that someone must have had clear vision at least once for each to have happened.  If we are to walk to someplace new, we, too, must have at least someone who can see the path clearly.  FK       

In nearly finishing the book "Not in Kansas Anymore" by Christine Wicker, the author brings us to a remarkable character named "Siva," a man who lived with a woman who has a magic and spell shop in California.  He seemed, the author says, like a very decent, gentle man.  It was not until the woman mentioned his "blood pact with Satan" that she had to think again - and interview the man.  

Siva begins by explaining that Satan is the god of Earth, and his pact with him is a pact with nature, to help her in its proliferation and health.  That seems good enough, and in accordance with some ideas from Wiccans and other naturalist believers who think Jehovah was the god of anti-nature and male/human dominance over the world.  They believe that women once controlled everything in a gentle, earth-friendly way, and that the god of the Christians is a mythological monster that is responsible (through his humans) for all the troubles we see today.  Look, say these neo-pagans, what they did to the pagans of northern Europe! Witch burnings and the slaughter of the Druids and nature-remedy doctors are highlighted, and some of it is true.  So we understand this explanation of this man's Satan.

But no, we don't: he is also part of a society for "abortion, suicide, bestiality and sodomy."  Asked about this - the worst of the worst, for many of us - he gives a few quirky explanations, and then the big picture in all as he proclaims that he is a martyr for the truth, just as Jesus was.  Jesus, says Siva, was first and foremost an iconoclast.  His actions at the time and place he was in were outrageous - he ate with the unclean, had social dialogue and sympathy for prostitutes and heretics (Samaritans) and violated the laws of Judaism in any number of ways.  He scandalized his people and was justly, in their eyes, killed for it.  And so Siva sees himself: an iconoclast, speaking out for those acts that we, or at least the mainstream, consider the most heinous, or nearly so.  It is all about freedom - says Siva (through Wicker), "the Great Martyrdom Cult opposes societal repression, rouses people up, and rescues parts of human experience by mentioning things and performing actions that society considers abhorrent, as Jesus did."   

A fascinating look at a mind captured by current cultural relativism, it does not matter that he got many ideas wrong.  Jesus did not want to outrage for the sake of "rescuing forbidden aspects of human nature."  This is the common fallacy of the relativists, and we hear it again and again.  They continue to not listen to how Jesus ends all his scandalous intercourse with the despised - "Go and sin no more."  Jesus never said "do what thou wilt," but rather  pointed to the heart of the law, to those things that were meant to matter.  The old Jewish keepers of the law  knew this well, and so were called by Jesus "hypocrites" for keeping the law superficially while not living it internally.  The turning inside-out of society was done not by throwing away the present morality, but going to the heart of the morality - and, in many ways, reaffirming it through loving, rather than through vindictive or self-righteous, actions. 

But Siva is convinced of his own interpretation, as are more and more practitioners of personally formed religions, whether the truth backs them up or not.  And it is this that is forming the real revolution that we are witnessing, now in a slower motion that may 
change into explosive change.  It comes from interconnections that increase the idea of relativity, as well as the power given to the individual through blogs and Facebook and U-tube.  Some revolutions, like ours in America, reaffirmed already given notions; while other, such as the French Revolution, brought radical change and, for some time, bloodshed and chaos.  We are now in a radical revolution, but it has not reached a violent level, accept in Muslim countries.  It may never here.  But sooner or later the center will give and a new one will come about.  Although such a center may be temporarily formed through power, those that last longest are formed through a gradual arrival at the threshold of truth. But for this, consensus must occur - and how might that happen with a million, or a hundred million Sivas?  Usually through a Great Man (or, just as likely now, a great woman).  He may indeed be a martyr, but it is hard to believe he will be a martyr for "Do what thy wilt, especially if it angers the establishment."  

We will continue to conjecture on our new revolution; for those who live another fifty years, they will probably see what God - or Hell - hath wrought.  FK                          

Today, a new essay, "Archaeology," under Essays in the website. FK 

Between questions on True Religions and Christine Wicker's book, "We're Not in Kansas Anymore," it is hard to find a place to begin.  Where does "practical sense" come from?  Where does magic begin and end?  Does it include religion?  And just who, exactly, are the suckers?

The suckers; the parents to the Baby Boomers, now re-titled the Greatest Generation, were so called because of the hard times they went through and overcame.  This produced a no-nonsense approach to life which I think can be found in my childhood's favorite character, Bugs Bunny.  "What a moroon!" Bugs would say of dreamers and oddballs, and so it was with my parent's generation: look to the facts of life and work with what you find.  Don't believe in pie in the sky crap (another phrase from the 1930's).  Have religion if you wish, but keep it out of the boardroom or factory.  Don't be a sucker or you will be punished in very real terms.  They were a far cry from the founding Pilgrims, who were furious over the sinful behavior of the colonials that followed them - why, they went for the money!  God was supposed to be all, but the Yankee character took another turn and became synonymous with the sharp and often dishonest salesman.  My home state of Connecticut is also known as the Nutmeg State, as the nutmeg vendors of the colonial era were known for their shrewdness and attention to the dollar.  They could spot a sucker a mile away.

They had practical sense, as did my parent's generation - they knew how to make a buck and keep it.  There is nothing wrong with that, but to many in my generation, that was not enough.  It was too shallow and did not fulfill the soul.  A lot of us thus became, like myself, suckers - throwbacks, in many ways and in spite of the drugs and sex, to the founding Americans.  But what of reality? Being tightly practical IS a good way to make bucks and save them, but does it really reflect reality?  And this is the problem and interest I am having with Wicker's book.

No, Bugs Bunny knew little of realty - not the spacey, new-age stuff, but the REAL stuff - atoms, energy equations, light waves and particles, and gravity.  If you told him he was not matter as he thought of it, but rather a slowed-down form of energy, he'd quickly steal a carrot from you and call you a 'moroon.'  But he would be wrong.  Reality, even as defined by our priests of reality, the scientists, is not anything like what the practical man knows - and yet, he, our daily Bugs, is the smart guy.  He knows an apple from a turnip, and a magical spell from a carburetor.  Or so he thinks.

On the other hand, a lot of what Wicker describes IS at best nonsense.  She opens with a visit to a witch's party in Salem, where people who are convinced that they are vampires roam.  Many are also convinced that they can curse you, cause you to fall in love, or cause you to fail or succeed by types of magic exemplified by voodoo dolls, or one's that use hair or fingernails from the subject.  As was proven all too clearly by the Western colonial conquerors,  this magic seemed to work only on those who believed.  The white man did not die when his stolen lock of hair was burned, or a fingernail was dropped into some sour milk.  No, the practical won and the magical became subjects or slaves.  That is our Western history and it is largely true. 

Where does the truth of magic lie?  We might find it in religion, which is also thought to be wishful thinking and silly magic by the practical man.  Others more conciliatory believe that magic is a decadent offshoot of religion, but both fall in the same overall category to the skeptic; there is little proof that either work or are correct.  Both fall into the subjective realm, although most religions, unlike magic, do not promise results.  It is for this reason that some of little faith (or so it might be said) practice both magic and religion - one to get the job or the love interest, the other to stay in good with the BIG god or gods.  For those of much faith, results and proof are not to be expected.  Jesus, for instance, especially blessed those who believed in him with faith alone, unlike his disciples who saw the risen Christ.  Suckers, anyone?  

And yet - the sucker's also the sucker.  His life is flat, often wrong even from a scientific perspective, and the answers to the bigger questions must simply be sloughed off - because the answers to these questions do not conform to his reality pattern.  But as Wicker points out, in reality the practical man is a hard item to find.  Most have their private magic, their belief that making it through five lights in a row or finding five bucks in the snow means that a good day - a lucky day - is coming.  Some have magic talismans, an item that they keep for good luck or as a guardian, others see in the health of a plant given to them at the start of their business the future success of the business, or a bad event before a big trip is planned an augury of a disastrous trip.  Some think eating carrots will keep away cancer, others that exercise will protect them from aging; and many scientists believe in their theories well beyond the point in which facts would tell them that they are wrong; that, too, is a kind of magic.  

And so we have the set-up: what is there that we can call reasonably real?  Who, really, is the sucker and who the wise guy?  We will hopefully sort some of this out in following days.  FK                 

          

If we look to Rooson's inquiry from yesterday asking for the names of True Religions, I should direct those interested to any dictionary on the topic.  Most of what would be included come from the Axial Age, generally between 500 BC and the time of Christ, but also would include Islam, from some 600 years later.  I sense, however, that this in not the real question, but rather this: if Christ's death was humankind's redemption, how can any of the other religions be truly True?  That is, how can they save us, or, in my words, bring us to God?  

Good question, and it can only be met with speculation.  Perhaps other culture areas were not in need of this kind of redemption; or perhaps such redemption is only one way to God - maybe "redemption" in, say, Hinduism is met by fasting and paying little heed to the materialistic dream (as Christ exhorted).  Finer heads than mine have discussed this.  At the time that Father Bede went to India - in the 1950's - the Catholic church had an idea that all the other major religions were on the right path, but still had not reached the highest goal, that of embracing Christ.  It was a philosophy that was called something like Eventualism - that these other (non-Christian) people were being prepared for Christ, much as the Jews were, but were still waiting for the final salvation.  This has since given way to the idea that people CAN reach God through other True Religions, but that these are not the best or most direct, of ways.  One explanation has it that other religions could bring one to experience the Christ in the heart, and thus bring salvation through Christ without the paraphernalia of Christianity.  We can see the logic - if Christ was necessary for humankind, he was necessary for ALL humankind.  Ecumenicism demanded a wider approach, and thus it was found by the great theological minds of Christianity without destroying the primary idea that Christ was essential for all humankind, and that He had only come once and would not come again until the Final Days.  

Catholic priests such as Father Bede (he and others may be found in the archives of this website) lived in India to meld the two philosophies - of Hinduism with the reality of Christ the redeemer.  Those who successfully participated in the Hindu idea of meditation came away with the certainty that Hinduism could indeed lead to God (the Absolute), but were divided on the reason why.  Some believed that the path led them through Christ as mentioned above - and as such, did not run counter to the priority of Christianity.  Others (I'm sorry, I forget their names for now) came to believe that the Absolute might be approached through Christ, but that it was not necessary, as God was beyond all such duality; that God, in the end, was only one God, by  whatever name or representation.  I will leave the readers to find these arguments on their own for now, or comb through the archives for the blogs written about this.  In any case,  I'm sure this topic will come up again.

For now, I have begun a book, "Not in Kansas Anymore" by Christine Wicker about the explosion of magical beliefs and practices in the US since the 1960's.  At this point, 51 pages in, she approaches the topic in a matter-of-fact manner, exposing, really, the obsessive nature of our human condition regarding supernatural powers.  We, even good Christians, have developed magical means to ward off "bad luck" or bring in "good luck," often in ways we do not think about (for instance, don't say "things sure are looking good for us, honey" to your spouse, or you may bring down disaster).  In these small ways, I find that she is right.  However, if expanded - and we shall see how she expands this - this skepticism could include all manner of subjective philosophies, including all the religions.  Her premise to this point seems the extreme materialistic one, the one taken by many Americans during the mid-20th century. That is, that there is no spirit working in our lives, that things like telepathy and meaningful coincidence don't exist, and that magic - which would include prayer, by her inclinations so far - simply is wishful thinking.  

Much of this blog is dedicated to counter this attitude that it seems she has.  It is true, however, that a lot of what we do is useless magic, at least from a practical standpoint, very much like superstitions involving black cats and ladders and bad pennies and such.  But she has so far not mentioned that inexplicable things, like remissions and telepathy and even clairvoyance, have been well documented, meaning that our idea of "practical" is woefully incomplete.  Further, we have creation and consciousness to contend with, even bigger problems for the practical mind.  We shall see where this all leads.  It could prove interesting, as she roams across America to visit those who believe they can alter reality by various non-physical means.  FK       

To begin with, I have to offer the readers a kind of apology - really, a disclaimer of sorts.  When talking about such things as the meaning of the Bible (or Vedas, for that matter) and certain passages, I am just one of the crowd.  Thousands of the best and brightest minds have concerned themselves with such things for centuries.  Mine is just another voice, and not a particularly expert one at that.

However, because religious texts are necessarily written in mythical/poetic form (they must express ideas that are larger than the words they have to use, and so much draw from analogies and metaphors), they are left open to interpretation.  When Jesus says, "the only way to the Father is through me," a strict interpretation becomes quite possible.  It is what it is.  And yet, the same Gospels cry out for interpretation beyond what they appear to say.  Did Christ really expect us to leave everything and live like the sparrow, on faith alone? Did he also expect us to "despise our parents" and family and friends and wander alone and apart?  That is, while strict fundamentalists have no problem following the first, that Christ is the only way, they also have no problem NOT following the second set of principles.  And yet, if the Bible is to be read strictly, mustn't we  conform to it just as strictly?  If not, then it is WE who are picking and choosing, and we would be falling into the same category as those theologians who favor the  looser interpretations.  

And so I feel justified in questioning the meaning intended for the audience of any religious dogma - and feel justified in seeing it ALL as a symbol of something far greater than what we are used to.  If I look to my own religion, R. Catholicism, it is now believed that all True Religions (we will not go back into a definition of them here, but for the most part, we may simply say they are those that have a large or steady following and a long pedigree) are justifiable paths to God.  This is not New Age soft stuff, but from the very Church despised by many who consider themselves to be progressives.   One might also note that this attitude was not always the case - which is an admittance (that the Church has always maintained) that God intends us to grow and reform certain views along with that growth.  I should also add that, on the other hand, the Vatican also holds that Catholicism is the BEST way to find God - an attitude one should expect  from any religion.  

On the New Age, although it is often sloppy, sentimental and too feel-good, I do not think it is a foolish thing, but rather a movement to find a True Religion that suits a rapidly changing world.  As far as I know, it began in the 1960's, fueled in part by an increasing awareness of Eastern religions and the use of psychedelic drugs. The Seth book, which I have just read, might well be called the Mother of the New Age, for it contains nearly all its offshoots and puts them into a coherent whole.  As I have said before, it is a much better book than I had imagined, and an inspired work if nothing else.  And yet - as usual with New Age ideas, it does not consider the full human condition as it is experienced on this Earth from our understanding.  My last essay, "Nightmares," delves into this human condition - for, just as we might all be eternal and beautiful in the full scheme of things, so we also suffer horribly in this segment of reality.  The True Religions recognize this - look at the words used in the famous song, "Turn, Turn, Turn," by Pete Seager, taken from Ecclesiastes.  To everything there is a season - a time to hate, a time to love - a time for peace, a time for war - a time to rejoice, a time to mourn.  None of these are forgotten or passed over as "mere" emotions.  In Christianity in particular, suffering is front and center, and intended (in part) to comfort the sufferer with its inevitability as well as its eventual negation, or the triumph, in the end, of joy over pain and sorrow.  But suffering here is never epiphenomenal; it is front and center and for real.  And so, if we do indeed need a more relevant body of religious wisdom to connect us with eternal reality, it must face these, the toughest parts of life.  Saying that we can "think" or "intend" them away is no answer.  FK   

Very interesting comments from Cal and Rooson, each in its own way.  For Cal, the idea that adversity is making Christianity stronger is an established one.  It is true, for instance, that by the 14th century, Christendom had fallen into a pit of excess and hubris - which then caused Europe to divide into two main courses.  One, was the Reformation and the Catholic counter-reformation, both of which attempted, with varying degrees of success, to address the problems associated with the Christian nations' status quo.  These did spark revivals in faith, especially among the few who were educated.  The fervor of many of the new Protestants and born-again Catholics often rivaled that of the early Christians, although not always in ways that we would like - the 16th century saw the Inquisition and witch trials, the latter squashing centuries of valid knowledge concerning healing and and personal spiritual growth.  

The second stream led to the Renaissance, a bugaboo with traditionalists who argue well that this brought the beginnings of modern materialism, an emphasis on this-world human development.  But perhaps our time-line is off; perhaps the impact of this materialism has yet to reach its peak, and the real test of faith is yet to come, as I think Cal is saying.  There are, they say, no atheists in foxholes.  

Perhaps, however, Christianity is really dwindling away; by the time of Christ, the Greek and Roman religions were moribund, not through conquest, but through the very success of this greater culture.  The old had simply lost power.  In hindsight, we can see that the people were searching for something more genuine, and they found it in Christianity.  But perhaps now, it no longer feels genuine.  Perhaps it has lost its power through time, the once-great insights of Christ now being reduced to tired cliches.  In much the same way, we have seen language diminished - for instance "awesome," as everyone past 30 knows, no longer has the impact it once had.  It is not that the meaning behind it is no longer "awesome" - but that we have co-opted it, brought it under the umbrella of the mundane.  Christianity may now be in the same position.  Its meaning is as great and mysterious as ever, but it no longer captures the imagination of the great majority, when one includes all of culturally European-based people. 

Will our "falling apart" revive it?  I think yes, with some; but with many, no; and for those, a new way to deeper meaning would have to be found.  Religions last a long time, but never, as far as we know, do they last forever.  They need to be made fresh in another guise : in another wine container, as Jesus would have it.  

Which brings us to Rooson's comment.  There was much said there that I agree with, but we always come to that idea, which is in the Bible, that one can only come to God through Christ.  I must reiterate my own belief that Christ, too, might come in different containers.  We must ask questions: will illusions to shepherds continue to reverberate in a world where almost no one is conscious of the land and practices that provide him with food and clothing?  Will tales of despots like Herod and Caesar resonate with a people who know nothing of such styles of government?  Or of provincial peoples such as the ancient Jews with their strict prejudices and rules, when we are all aware of each other through the internet, or something even greater in the future?  Do I court heresy when I say that maybe Christianity as we know it is coming to an end, to be replaced by something whose surface structure is more suitable for the times?  Did, for instance, Christ come to the Chinese and the Hindus and so forth in the guise that most suited that time and place?

Is, then, Christ not a man, but a symbol, a position in the heart that binds a person with all people, and all people with God?  Could deification of the human vessel and name of Jesus be the true heresy?  I know that might be a little strong, but I put it forth to make a point.  Christianity might rise again in adversity, but perhaps not as the Christianity we now know.  Although we might still find God only through Christ, in some other time or place this might not be through the image of Jesus.  For the bread and wine represent his body and blood, but are not body and blood - just as Jesus represented Christ, but was not, as a body, the Christ.  That is, that the spirit and meaning are eternal, but the particular vessels in which they are carried are as mutable as anything else made of matter or by man.  FK

There was an unusual party in my neighborhood last night - since one pair of them always gave a St Patrick's Day party, but were gone for that date, April 17 was elected as a Paddy's Redux.  And so we sat with corn beef and Guinness and Jameson's Whiskey and very soon the conversations got going.  The man across from me was a turkey hunter, and we talked turkey for awhile, noting how many there now were and how they simply did not exist in most of the US in our childhood, or even our early adulthood.  That got us to talking about species extinction, the passenger pigeon, and finally the fate of all civilizations.  Extinction.  With a look that perhaps gave away the store, I then asked anyone listening what they thought of our civilization at its present time.  Several answered and the decision was unanimous: we are falling apart.  

The demographics of our group range from conservative to liberal, academic to blue collar, and yet we all agreed.  To be fair, we are all of an approximate age, and the old do tend to look on the upcoming world with criticism.  But there is something more to it, I think.  I have never seen a survey done asking that very question, "what is the state of our civilization;" instead, it is asked, "what is the direction of our country?" and most recently, a very large percentage - I recall about 70 % - said it was poor and heading in the wrong direction.  But that is more often than not dependent on the politics of the last few years.  But even with this caveat, I do believe most of us understand that we have gotten to a point, world wide, where the center cannot hold.  That things are falling apart.  While we can point to any number of things for this belief, from climate change to broken homes, I believe that this is a gut feeling, more intuitive than anything else.  In the past, such presentiments were often based on religious auguries, such as millennium fears for Christians, and celestial combinations for just about everyone, but that is not our case today.  Rather, it is an unease with the speed of change around us.  Things are happening so fast that we realize that we have no time to adopt them to our cultural standards - and I mean that on a world-wide basis.  Some Muslims are reacting to that change in unbelievably violent ways, while others are simply giving in with a whimper rather than a bang.  Still, we seem to know that the jig is up - that the old ways, as changed as they have become, have been stretched to the point of breaking.  In the past, this has led to the downfall of empires, to dark ages, and to the ascension of the "barbarians" outside the gate.  Now, we are all in this together, whether or not we see it or want it - and I think most see it in their own culturally-driven way.  The WWI generation of literaries and artists saw it in their time, and they were right: the end to monarchies and colonialism had come, and the worst war ever was coming closer on the heals of the War to End All Wars; and now we are seeing the same thing.  For some it means freedom from cultural restraints and they glory in it; for most, it means the end of order and the reign of chaos.  As the I Ching says, we must impose limits on ourselves and on our understanding of nature.  Without that, we fall into chaos and misery.

I have perhaps taken too long with this theme, but it does hinge on the Redemption, what Christians the world over are readying to celebrate this Sunday.  The Redemption through the blood of Christ is a mystery within the Church of Rome; to social scientists, it can be explained through cultural cross-reference.  For instance, the Aztecs felt that our (natural) system was a closed one, that energy taken had to be replaced.  This was done with human sacrifice.  The pre-Biblical Near Eastern people had similar beliefs, but when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, Jehovah spared him at the last minute and had him substituted for a lamb.  Thus Christ was called the Lamb of God, who took away the sins of the world.  The original  sin then would be the taking of energy (life) from the natural system that had to be appeased.  Human sacrifice was needed, substituted by animal sacrifice, and then the sacrifice of the very son of God, He who had demanded sacrifice in the first place.  It is in this that there is symbiosis and reconciliation - God sacrifices his own to free mankind of his need for sacrifice.  

The last bit is a convoluted thing, though, and no social science theory can really touch it.  It is something like the dragon eating its tail, this replacement of human sacrifice to God by God's sacrifice to himself, for humans.  The Church is right; it IS a mystery.  But, to tie the two discussions together, where is our redemption now?  As things fall apart, there is less and less belief that such divine reconciliation exists.  In the Old Testament, such disbelief was called "sin" and it led to such things as the Great Flood (interestingly, most cultures have a great flood in their mythology).  Is this what we really feel?  Not the specific fear of the Christian or Jew, but the general fear that we are out of touch with nature, and with ourselves?  Recall that the party conversation quickly veered to extinction before settling on civilization.  As we no longer sacrifice to nature, and many no longer believe in a symbiotic relationship with God, are we sensing the falling apart from this?  For, believe in this or not, the inner psyche of humans demands such a feedback or a redemption.  It is seen from the most primitive societies to the highest (most complex) civilizations.  When that sense of reciprocity is lost, don't we feel that the center is not holding?  That we are missing something, and on the edge of the abyss?  

I, for one, will pay more attention to the meaning of Easter this Sunday.  FK                     

To go back to Cal's criticism of Seth (from Jane Roberts), yes, I have just read that certain people are especially set up to receive esoteric knowledge.  Often, they are being taught (past, future, present) to access this knowledge within our reality frame.  So, yes, some are special in this regard.  However, as said, such things are accessible for us if we try.  Oddly, meditation, or "navel gazing" as it is sometimes called, is not an easy thing.  That is why children are punished by being put in a corner.  We crave outside stimuli.  Try it - of a variety of your choosing - and see.  If you can stick with it, some unexpected things might happen.  

Also, Seth touches on suffering - as our consciousness creates the world (according to Seth), so worldly woes are also created by us - not just through evil people, but by the natural phenomena of death and disease and so on as well.  He claims that this is all fall-out from experimenting with our creativity, including such things as war and the attendant crimes.  On this, I admit to being skeptical.  It passes over frank divisions between good and evil on the part of humans, even if all is assumed under the One in the final analysis.  Surely, there must be penalties for evil choices?  Perhaps that will come up towards the end of the book.  I, for one, am not ready to admit to absolute moral relativity.  

Speaking of meditation: It was during meditation this morning that an idea came up: again, on the impossible exhortations of Jesus for us to turn the other cheek, be meek, give up all things, our cloaks and so on.  Referring back to Seth, among many others, the ego is seen as the machine behind our survival.  But it is also our prison warden, so obsessively concerned with its directive that it blots out other avenues of consciousness and perception that could be available at each moment.  Jesus's parables on this, then, are another take on avoiding the ego - in fact, in this light, a lesson on the ego itself.  It is not so much that we must give up all things - although to a perfect human, this would be possible - but to be aware of the trap this aspect of ego lays for us.  I believe what is being said is, "deny the primacy of survival first and always.  Deny it so that you might see the reality(ies) behind it."  Thus, again, is reiterated the central notion that is in the New Testament, of turning the world on its head.  It is (or may be, in my view) a prescription for spiritual enlightenment, a stark model of the ego and how to overcome, or see beyond, it.  

In the end, as always, lies faith; not the blind faith of the fanatic believer, but rather a faith in the process, in the rightness of being. Tuning from the ego, even for a short period, often brings terror.  This singular point of consciousness believes that by being shut off, it will die.  That is the reason why you and I often freak out over something extraordinary.  For me, my out-of-body experiences were often accompanied by panic as I realized the bizarreness (to the working ego) of the situation.  Help! I'm dying!  And thus ends the experiment.  Faith, first and foremost, is there to give us courage.  If we firmly believe that we are part of eternity and eternal, we have far less to fear and much more room to grow.  It is the necessary adjunct to getting beyond the limited self.  Thus Jesus is giving us a prescription for spiritual growth.  I don't know how that would be viewed by the orthodox, but what does it contradict? 

As we are nearing Easter, I will try, if the spirit comes, to see from a different angle the death and Resurrection of Christ, as well as the notion of pan-human sin and redemption.  Or perhaps I will simply leave it to the experts.  For me, the Redemption is perhaps the hardest thing to understand - unless it is understood in the terms of the religion, Judaism, that gave birth to it.  If inspiration flows, or some reader has an encompassing take on it, perhaps tomorrow.  FK