I like this alot, @21802 . I’d add one bit regarding spirituality. The point of good theology is not to define who or what God is, but to properly locate the place of divine mystery. There is a point beyond which we cannot know God; the classic theologians never speak of God but only of “God for us.” The idea being that all we can know of God is what God has revealed of Godself to us, and that is what we need to know or can comprehend. However, we cannot know all of God, the essence of God, which is why we cannot “call the name of” God.
To call the name of someone or something is an old expression (that I learned from the ancient Jews, but that is broadly located in Oriental thinking) that connotes authority. So the boss at a company is Mr. Smith but his employees are Bob and Sue. He can call their names, but they cannot call his because he has authorship/authority of them as his workers.
In the same way we know God is God, but we cannot know or call God’s name; if we could we’d have the power to define God, hence master God. That is, to create God in our image of who and what God ought to be. (Every time we define God, we create an idol.)
To call the name of God would imply we know everything there is to know about God, hence the ineffable, the spiritual, the cosmic beyond the cosmos. Or, in your language, it would be we’ve slapped a materializing construct on the immaterial.
Suddenly, we’ve convinced ourselves we understand God and can appropriate God. That’s akin to thinking we can appropriate biological sciences and come out with good (ie, Godly) results.
Classical theology maintains there is a place beyond which we cannot see, cannot penetrate because we are finite (material, and limited to the material), and finite minds cannot encompass the infinite (non-material; spiritual). We can only point to it and learn to correctly understand where that boundary is; what is and is not the spiritual realm.
Our contemporary world has lost the grasp of that nuance, having become dull of mind by our preoccupation with materialism. We make a lot of mistakes around defining “spiritual,” often mistaking our subtle desires, or our intuition or feelings, for what the ancients meant by the term.
I think you’re pointing to a similar error in how we’ve dulled down the scientific quest. In both cases, the human consequence is self-delusion about our powers and our location in creation, and a growing desire to make war on dissenters from the approved narrative.
Thanks, MarkBC.
Materialism, which purports to explain everything, ultimately explains nothing. e.g. consciousness, agency, objective morality, reason, causation, or even why anything at all exists.
September is supposed to be an inflection point if you follow the teachings of Sat Yoga.
Sounds like a few new books to add to the list
Get it on Audible?
Mass Formation (psychosis): In Brief
Check out a member of our tribe’s essay about this… https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09V1GZVQF/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o07?ie=UTF8&psc=1
It is a great, quick read that covers different angles as well as some history. Check it out!!
Well that didn’t take long! Here is the missing link:
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/data-doesnt-lie-mrna-vaccines-and
cheers.
Essential Knowledge All Need To Learn
Not only did I enjoy the entire interview with both Chris and Mattias, I very much liked the subject matter, the way Chris allowed Mattias to talk without interruption and the incredible ability of Mattias to deliver his knowledge of Totalitarianism in a very satisfactory and understandable way. I am very impressed with both Chris and Mattias plus I am very happy I experienced this fantastic interview and absorbed the knowledge from such a great mind as that of Mattias Desmet, who in my humble opinion, has nailed our current time to a tee. Thank you to you both, the pleasure was all mine!
Well well look who it is, you stalking me or am I stalking you? lol Seems great minds think and act alike ! lol Great seeing you here my friend!?
Muh man, I didn’t know you were around here! It seems most of these replies are people getting caught up on religion/spirituality but my point is his shifted narrative and how he shields the monied and authority interests to blame individuals. I ran into a review on Solaris and he deconstructs Desmet’s writing much deeper than I’d even noticed. Desmet tried to get an interview with Fitts so she sent him that review and asked him to reply to the key critiques. Last I’d heard he had denied to reply to the criticism on the grounds that writing wasn’t spiritually connecting as a live discussion. It sounded like an excuse considering the review was on his written book but I am extremely biased against Desmet at this point so I encourage others to check it out.
I appreciate you’re reply but religion/spirituality is just one piece of it. The problem is I cannot look at his works in a snapshot, I’ve witnessed the entire progression of it. His assertions today make little sense to his original thesis. Sure as research is done people come to different conclusions or perhaps they’re taken in new directions altogether however this is not what I have seen from Desmet. His original claims were of widespread mass formation hysteria throughout history and his claims now seem more focused on government and social mindset of a community. That would be fine on it’s own but it doesn’t apply to mass formations throughout history. This is why he stopped referencing the historical events that no longer fall into his narrative. To be very clear these are my main issues with him:
- His grand theory of mass formation has silently dropped events in history that no longer fit into his new refined narrative.
- He completely ignores all of the bad faith actors and monetary interest who are forcing society into this situation. The military divisions and private contractors who specialized in psychological warfare have been turned around and pointed at the population. This funded by a pharmaceutical industry with more profit than many countries GDP. We are living inside an advertisement as far as the news and social media is concerned and yet most people are unaware the foundation has changed.
Desmet’s willingness to dismiss the unparalleled corruption and fraud along with his loose application of whatever the latest iteration of his frequently restructured thesis has left me questioning his ethics.
Note: In reply to what you said about “Religion and spirituality has been denigrated in these arenas, and replaced with rationality and Science”
- I dispute this claim. You can’t have rationality and science while living inside an advertisement. When most RCT cannot be replicated, this is not “rationality and science” it’s a corrupt corporate existence we’re currently engulfed in. This is what is leading to a Technocracy. To pretend that it’s rationality and science causing the problem will be taken by many that a religious/spirituality path forward is the only solution. That could lead the pendulum to swing in the opposite direction. There’s no reason one can’t point out a lack of religious/spiritual perspective in the current environment. I think it’s extremely bad faith to do so while also pretending all is well in the world of science and rational. I’m not claiming that is your intention but I think it’s important to highlight the issue.
Thanks.
Desmet Is Wrong
I have been long contemplating this book of Mattias Desmet and the diametrical views presented by my two fav thought leaders: Chris Martenson and Catherine Austin Fitts.
I suppose the part of his book that concerns me the most is the following:
“In this state, the confused spectator typically develops an intense need for a simple frame of reference, which allows him to mentally master the complexity, and in which to place and control the anxiety and other intense emotions that arise. An interpretation in terms of a conspiracy meets that need. It reduces the enormous complexity of the phenomenon to a simple frame of reference: All anxiety is linked to one object (a group of people who intentionally deceives, the supposed “elite”) and thereby becomes mentally manageable. All blame can be placed outside oneself…. As such, in a certain sense, conspiracy thinking—the thinking that reduces all world events to one big conspiracy—fulfills the same function as mass formation.” (pp.127-128)
Rather than acknowledge that there are power hungry people and groups that are manipulating the narrative through finance, education, pharma and food, Desmet claims that it is our unfulfilled childhood needs for a parent and control that causes us to develop a mental illness known as “mass formation.” That conveniently lets off the hook all the bad actors involved in our corporations, government and other organizations like the World Economic Forum.
I don’t buy it.
Catherine sent him a list of her concerns when he requested an interview and she got zip, nada from him in return.