Interesting that you put “evolutionarily theory“ in there. One should not confuse adaptation (to the real world like with finches beaks) with evolution (a new different form).
Can you give one example of a true changed form from before rather than an unfounded “theory“ of a change happening? The historical records do not demonstrate such which is why prior presented examples have been shown to be frauds.
On what basis can it be said that society, ethics, culture has to advance rather than devolve?
On what basis is there even morality?
Evolution of immaterial thought is confused with the “evolution“ of the material or life.
Only that which can be measured is recognized which is Scientism devoid of unmeasurable things like love, etc. What one ends up with is a simple proposed method of operation or pathway within a cell, for example a ribosome assuming that the 10,000 other ribosomes surrounding this one within the cell play no role. How does this one ribosome get selected to do its function out of all the others? One ends up with ideas like mRNA shots to healthy people.
How can a creation not have the essence of its creator in it? Who created the rules?
And here is the difference. Marx and materialists do not believe in a creator and, therefore, must believe in something from nothing happening. If such is possible, I have not seen it.
Without a creator, man is free to direct the world which derives from nothing. There is no reverence of anything sacred and the world and its people are malleable like clay.
Assuming that material and immaterial must progress to unite in De Chardin's Noosphere stands in opposition to entropy and, hence, the need to insert energy and manipulate.
Huxley's position that Human society set moral standards, not nature, still lacks the basis for moral standards. It invites relativity without a fixed standard for assessment.
The depression of the mid 1800s which supposedly influenced Huxley to be against survival of the fittest only was based upon fractional reserve banking which is fraudulent and amoral in only a Christian sense. In other words, who decides what is fit?
Appears that Huxley was a part of the (Masonic) Malthusian nonsense of overpopulation based upon flies in a closed system jar with limited food provision.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H__Wqnc-ts. ... Yep - Aquinas is as clear as Augustine in response to the Hermetic cult, which exposes constructivism as the magical thinking that it is: contra Siger of Brabant's suspension of the unreal middle-ground that's excluded by logical consistency, Aquinas is no proto-new realist; he doesn't erase the boundary between sign and signified, he uses the standard correspondence model of truth. And unlike his Hermetic modern butchers, he quite clearly identifies the threat of deception that plagues our fallen condition and explicitly calls out Hermes and his followers as child-abusing bullshitters (recent scholarship quotes theurgic texts describing boys being used as mediums in essentially the same way as inanimate objects are used). Marx and other monists don't have this dual stream of influence running through nature, one truthful (even when it sustains the lives of liars, as in book 18 of Augustine's City of God, where he explains how and why even pagan gymnasts who deny Him owe all their thanks to Christ) and one deceptive. They inhabit the same Hermetic universe as Bruno, who as Culiano outlines (https://youtu.be/RAT9fioI94k?si=08yH6nPvIdl4-oOm), saw every rational being as competing manipulators, with no single, overarching truth above them all. Hence in their world there is only bullshit; winning bullshit and losing bullshit, but invariably still ultimately bullshit! ... Reminds me of scientific truth after positivism made systematic bluffing the foundation of all knowledge!
No cybernetic lever could survive a Thomistic implementation of the principle of treating other as yourself, because the Chatham House Rule that protects NGO's would have to go, the companies registered in London's square mile would have to show their accounts... and heads would roll!
See martyrdom for an alternative 'clearing house' mechanism designed to protect pretensions to represent the common good from corruption and anchor all leadership to self-sacrifice... Imo the Church conceded any claim to moral high ground when it advocated violent conversion, when it's own creed suggests that good faith would mean, before abandoning Christ's non-violent example, letting the whole Church die if necessary, safe in the knowledge that God could resurrect it 1000 times if necessary. Violent missions to fill heaven, however, clearly betray either a lack of faith, or an ulterior motive...
The omission of Augustinian creation from nothing, providence and predestination (see The Literal Meaning of Genesis) makes panentheism seem a lot closer to Thomism than it actually is. No doubt many have tried very hard to drag him that way, but it's all bs - he's not Proclus! ... And nor is Abrahamic monotheism at all panentheistic for affirming the omnipresence of God and his law. Nor does positing a hierarchy within creation imply that it's all one self-governing system in which each part actively contributes to the whole directly through mutual interaction; see Augustine's On the Trinity for the traditional Catholic framework, in which everything in creation is an image of God to varying degrees of perfection, and all mutual interaction is mediated by God, with the help of angels in the case of entities that lack their own rational soul. Augustine's positioning of 'vital force' (in The Literal Meaning of Genesis) is also informative here, because he attributes it to God, whereas the pagan Neoplatonists attributed it to the souls of creatures, and this is how and why Augustine, against the theurgists, makes God the only Creator of natures (simultaneously on the first day of creation, not adventitiously from deistic, external vantage point, as Paley supposed and Darwin rejected) and limits the cntribution of creatures to 'farming', cultivation - i.e. culture. This is absolutely central to all of your work, so I expect you'd find Augustine's account of providence in The Literal Meaning of Genesis extremely useful, for there he accounts for the causality between creatures that Darwinists think he discovered. In the light of that Darwin's 'theory' actually looks like no more than a denial of the traditional theory of providence, which removes that explanation and ultimately replaces it with random chance, which is more like a denial that there is a causal explanation than a discovery of one. "Evolution" pretty much means nothing but "not by providence".
Is anyone alive today living what Jesus, Buddha and the great mystics taught and lived? Simple kindness & forgiveness are key, knowing this life is an illusion. Anyone out there?
Very interesting essay, thanks for posting! From a biblical point of view, my understanding is that we humans have basically messed up the place by not following our Creator's original intention.
We suffer the consequences of going our own ways, but he (yes, his son Jesus called him "Abba Father" not precluding maternal characteristics) did not leave us "up the creek without a paddle".
He sent Jesus to show humanity what he is like and to eventually die in our place on that brutal cross (we deserved the punishment for our wrongdoing).
There are definitely "bad actors" who have megalomaniac agendas to subjugate us all (see Hunger Games, V for Vendetta etc). In the book of Revelation we read of the Antichrist seeing himself up as Global "Emperor" with Peace announced for all people... Does that sound familiar?
Forgive the evangelistic post, but any opportunity to share this is welcome in my books!
As Jesus himself said regularly: "Repent (turn to me, away from the wrong stuff in your life) and believe - the [true] kingdom is imminent".
Reading Mark's gospel is a good place to start to get to know this Jesus, arguably the only one who can get us out of the mess we're in!
Interesting that you put “evolutionarily theory“ in there. One should not confuse adaptation (to the real world like with finches beaks) with evolution (a new different form).
Can you give one example of a true changed form from before rather than an unfounded “theory“ of a change happening? The historical records do not demonstrate such which is why prior presented examples have been shown to be frauds.
On what basis can it be said that society, ethics, culture has to advance rather than devolve?
On what basis is there even morality?
Evolution of immaterial thought is confused with the “evolution“ of the material or life.
Only that which can be measured is recognized which is Scientism devoid of unmeasurable things like love, etc. What one ends up with is a simple proposed method of operation or pathway within a cell, for example a ribosome assuming that the 10,000 other ribosomes surrounding this one within the cell play no role. How does this one ribosome get selected to do its function out of all the others? One ends up with ideas like mRNA shots to healthy people.
How can a creation not have the essence of its creator in it? Who created the rules?
And here is the difference. Marx and materialists do not believe in a creator and, therefore, must believe in something from nothing happening. If such is possible, I have not seen it.
Without a creator, man is free to direct the world which derives from nothing. There is no reverence of anything sacred and the world and its people are malleable like clay.
Assuming that material and immaterial must progress to unite in De Chardin's Noosphere stands in opposition to entropy and, hence, the need to insert energy and manipulate.
Is this any different than man wanting to be God?
read TH Huxley's 1893 romanes lecture
Huxley's position that Human society set moral standards, not nature, still lacks the basis for moral standards. It invites relativity without a fixed standard for assessment.
The depression of the mid 1800s which supposedly influenced Huxley to be against survival of the fittest only was based upon fractional reserve banking which is fraudulent and amoral in only a Christian sense. In other words, who decides what is fit?
Appears that Huxley was a part of the (Masonic) Malthusian nonsense of overpopulation based upon flies in a closed system jar with limited food provision.
Thanks for the reference.
> It invites relativity without a fixed standard for assessment
that's the express point.
“Everything in creation has a purpose” (I’d define as intent)
“The world is not separate from God but rather sustained by his continuous presence and causal influence” (there is interdependence here)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H__Wqnc-ts. ... Yep - Aquinas is as clear as Augustine in response to the Hermetic cult, which exposes constructivism as the magical thinking that it is: contra Siger of Brabant's suspension of the unreal middle-ground that's excluded by logical consistency, Aquinas is no proto-new realist; he doesn't erase the boundary between sign and signified, he uses the standard correspondence model of truth. And unlike his Hermetic modern butchers, he quite clearly identifies the threat of deception that plagues our fallen condition and explicitly calls out Hermes and his followers as child-abusing bullshitters (recent scholarship quotes theurgic texts describing boys being used as mediums in essentially the same way as inanimate objects are used). Marx and other monists don't have this dual stream of influence running through nature, one truthful (even when it sustains the lives of liars, as in book 18 of Augustine's City of God, where he explains how and why even pagan gymnasts who deny Him owe all their thanks to Christ) and one deceptive. They inhabit the same Hermetic universe as Bruno, who as Culiano outlines (https://youtu.be/RAT9fioI94k?si=08yH6nPvIdl4-oOm), saw every rational being as competing manipulators, with no single, overarching truth above them all. Hence in their world there is only bullshit; winning bullshit and losing bullshit, but invariably still ultimately bullshit! ... Reminds me of scientific truth after positivism made systematic bluffing the foundation of all knowledge!
No cybernetic lever could survive a Thomistic implementation of the principle of treating other as yourself, because the Chatham House Rule that protects NGO's would have to go, the companies registered in London's square mile would have to show their accounts... and heads would roll!
See martyrdom for an alternative 'clearing house' mechanism designed to protect pretensions to represent the common good from corruption and anchor all leadership to self-sacrifice... Imo the Church conceded any claim to moral high ground when it advocated violent conversion, when it's own creed suggests that good faith would mean, before abandoning Christ's non-violent example, letting the whole Church die if necessary, safe in the knowledge that God could resurrect it 1000 times if necessary. Violent missions to fill heaven, however, clearly betray either a lack of faith, or an ulterior motive...
The omission of Augustinian creation from nothing, providence and predestination (see The Literal Meaning of Genesis) makes panentheism seem a lot closer to Thomism than it actually is. No doubt many have tried very hard to drag him that way, but it's all bs - he's not Proclus! ... And nor is Abrahamic monotheism at all panentheistic for affirming the omnipresence of God and his law. Nor does positing a hierarchy within creation imply that it's all one self-governing system in which each part actively contributes to the whole directly through mutual interaction; see Augustine's On the Trinity for the traditional Catholic framework, in which everything in creation is an image of God to varying degrees of perfection, and all mutual interaction is mediated by God, with the help of angels in the case of entities that lack their own rational soul. Augustine's positioning of 'vital force' (in The Literal Meaning of Genesis) is also informative here, because he attributes it to God, whereas the pagan Neoplatonists attributed it to the souls of creatures, and this is how and why Augustine, against the theurgists, makes God the only Creator of natures (simultaneously on the first day of creation, not adventitiously from deistic, external vantage point, as Paley supposed and Darwin rejected) and limits the cntribution of creatures to 'farming', cultivation - i.e. culture. This is absolutely central to all of your work, so I expect you'd find Augustine's account of providence in The Literal Meaning of Genesis extremely useful, for there he accounts for the causality between creatures that Darwinists think he discovered. In the light of that Darwin's 'theory' actually looks like no more than a denial of the traditional theory of providence, which removes that explanation and ultimately replaces it with random chance, which is more like a denial that there is a causal explanation than a discovery of one. "Evolution" pretty much means nothing but "not by providence".
A great breakdown of different ways people try to understand the world. Love the connection between faith, science, and consciousness!
Is anyone alive today living what Jesus, Buddha and the great mystics taught and lived? Simple kindness & forgiveness are key, knowing this life is an illusion. Anyone out there?
Well there is a cult pretending to be able to create animal bodies like Jesus... but that's not the bit we're supposed to imitate is it!
new here.
this writing is oblique to my interests so thanks for doing it.
for newbs/dummies do you have a starter article as to what your purpose here is?
"sorry no, try and keep up" is perfectly valid ofc.
to root out evil
A few of my favorites, FWW:
Digital Sleuthing - A primer, ESC, JUL 08, 2023
Law and Ethics in the Total State, ESC, OCT 23, 2024
From Thomist Realism to the Omega Point, ESC, FEB 12, 2025
The Public-Private-Partnership, ESC, MAR 22, 2024
Subsidiarity, ESC, NOV 04, 2024
Very interesting essay, thanks for posting! From a biblical point of view, my understanding is that we humans have basically messed up the place by not following our Creator's original intention.
We suffer the consequences of going our own ways, but he (yes, his son Jesus called him "Abba Father" not precluding maternal characteristics) did not leave us "up the creek without a paddle".
He sent Jesus to show humanity what he is like and to eventually die in our place on that brutal cross (we deserved the punishment for our wrongdoing).
There are definitely "bad actors" who have megalomaniac agendas to subjugate us all (see Hunger Games, V for Vendetta etc). In the book of Revelation we read of the Antichrist seeing himself up as Global "Emperor" with Peace announced for all people... Does that sound familiar?
Forgive the evangelistic post, but any opportunity to share this is welcome in my books!
As Jesus himself said regularly: "Repent (turn to me, away from the wrong stuff in your life) and believe - the [true] kingdom is imminent".
Reading Mark's gospel is a good place to start to get to know this Jesus, arguably the only one who can get us out of the mess we're in!