Zdzislaw Beksinski (1929-2005) - AA72 - 1972
|
0 Comments
Bathroom air fresheners are an exellent idea, at least in theory.
After all, eliminating or masking the foul odors one has emitted after taking care of business on the toilet is surely a solid sign of good manners and decorum. I would go as far as to say it may represent a high-water mark of our decaying Western civilization. I can seriously imagine future historians, anthropologists, and scatology enthusiasts ruminating over the societal implications of dispersing offensive bathroom stenches via aerosols and the suspension of nicer-smelling fine solid particles or liquid droplets in the air. The problem with all bathroom aerosol air fresheners I have ever encountered is quite simple -- none of them really do their job. Instead of eliminating the foul-smelling solid particles or liquid droplets one's bowel movement has released into the air, bathroom aerosols do little more than blend in with the invisible, noxious cloud with which you have polluted the watercloset. Thus, instead of just shit, you are left with shit and Japanese Floral Garden, or shit and Vanilla Twist, or shit and Citrus Burst, all of which are infinitely more revolting than just shit on its own. My personal favorite, for reasons that should be readily apparent, is shit and Pure Clean Linen, though I must confess I also have a weak spot for holiday-themed aerosol scents like Merry Berry and Warm Apple Pie. Honestly, nothing says Christmas like the comforting and nauseating coalescence of shit and Gingerbread Cookies wafting out of the crapper after Uncle George relieves himself on Christmas morning. The horror resides not in the use of aerosols but in the disconcerting choice of scents, which do little more than accompany the odious reek of excrement they are meant to get rid of. Here is a brief list of some aromas that have traumatized me over the years:
Going forward, I stongly urge air freshener producers to focus on scents that might actually overpower offending odors. You know, try something like Industrial Bleach or Wine Barrel Sulfur Sticks. If that does not work, and we are stuck with aerosols merely mixing with the smells left in the bathroom, then I humbly suggest scents that complement the stench of shit -- scents like:
 Moonlight in Barösund - late 1870s  Moonlight Over the Sea - 1876 Christianity and following Jesus should be easy and simple enough for a child to understand, entailing that Christianity should be able to provide a simple and easy answer to the quintessential “why” question that children pose.
A child’s “why” question can be positive or negative. On the positive side, it reflects genuine curiosity and the desire to understand. In this sense, “why” is a springboard for exploration, discovery, development, and independence. On the negative side, it may merely express boredom, irritation, or attention-seeking. Children intuitively know that incessant “why” questions put everyone on the back foot, and they have no qualms about unleashing them for various negatively-inspired reasons. In light of the above, Christianity should possess easy and simple answers to a child’s positively inspired “why” questions. It should be able to supply comprehensible and satisfying responses to a child who seeks authentic understanding, all without elevating itself beyond a child’s cognitive abilities and comprehension. Moreover, Christianity must be able to address the question of motive—particularly God’s motive for Creation and the motive for Jesus’ creation of Heaven—because motive lies at the crux of all the positively-inspired “why” questions that children pose. Children are likely far more interested in the reasons that inspired God to create rather than the “how” or “what” of God’s Creation. Unfortunately, Christianity tends to balk at questions concerning God’s motive for Creation. The framework of conventional/traditional Christian assumptions renders nonsensical all “why” questions about God’s motives. It cannot provide a simple and easy answer to a child’s question of why God made Creation because it does not recognize the question as valid. Sidestepping such “why” questions may have been acceptable in the past when men were in different modes of consciousness; however, invalidating the question as nonsensical because it contradicts dominant Christian assumptions is no longer justifiable. Rather than dismiss such “why” questions outright, perhaps Christianity should step back and reassess its core assumptions—in particular, assumptions that automatically negate the perfectly justifiable lines of inquiry concerning motive that are embedded in a child’s “why” questions. Achieving a sense of what is real requires an acute sense of one’s own being. Why? Because nothing is more real than one’s own being.
Let the lofty and pious Christians cry out in unison, “Blasphemy! God is the most real being, not us!” I respond, “Without an acute sense of our own being, it would be impossible for us to perceive, let alone know, God.” And yes, there was a time when we lacked an acute sense of our own being—lacked self-awareness. A time when we could not perceive or know ourselves or God. Strangely enough, we are in a similar situation today, albeit for entirely different reasons. The Easter Sunday procession in my small village. I'm in sunglasses carrying one of the lamps. You can spot the village stork in the background of the second image. The last photo features my son (the bespectacled lad), who continues to serve as an altar boy at the village church. Happy Easter to all.     Nothing has disappointed me more than the avalanche of self-identified Chrisitans -- some of them exceptionally solid, intelligent, and articulate fellows -- who have been loudly boasting about all the winning "our side" has experienced since the new president was elected back in January.
Two things: One. Count me out of the "our side" you define and celebrate. No, seriously. I'm just fine over here on my own. Two. Rest assured, the last thing the current iteration of the System will ensure is your "winning." Unconvinced? Okay. Let's pick a low-hanging fruit example to keep it simple and comprehensible. Here's some Wikipedia information on Scott Bessent, the current Secretary of the US Treasury: Scott Kenneth Homer Bessent (/ˈbɛsənt/ BESS-ənt; born August 21, 1962) is an American government official, investor, and hedge fund manager serving as the 79th United States secretary of the treasury since 2025. Before his government service, he was a partner at Soros Fund Management and the founder of Key Square Group, a global macro investment firm. After graduating from Yale University in 1984, Bessent began a career in finance. He was hired by Soros Fund Management, eventually becoming the head of its London office. In this role, he was a leading member of the group that successfully bet on the 1992 sterling crisis, generating over $1 billion in profit for the firm. After he left the Soros Fund, he established his own investment firm, Key Square Group, in 2015. A major donor, fundraiser, and economic advisor for Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign,[2] Bessent was nominated for treasury secretary by Trump in November 2024 and confirmed by the United States Senate on January 27, 2025, by a vote of 68–29. Bessent is the second openly gay man to serve in the Cabinet of the United States (after Pete Buttigieg) and the fifth openly gay man to serve in a cabinet-level office (after Demetrios Marantis, Richard Grenell, Buttigieg, and Vince Micone).[3] As the United States secretary of the treasury is fifth in the United States presidential line of succession, he is the highest-ranking openly LGBT person ever to serve in the U.S. federal government.[4] Soros. 1992 sterling crisis/Black Wednesday. Openly gay, with a husband and all. So much winning! I can't wait to see how all this winning ultimately blesses "our side." Note added: The enthusiastic "this-worldly" optimism about things like the current US administration or any administration irks me (I've done some of this myself in the past, so I get it), but it does not irk me nearly as much as the sheer lack of basic connect-the-dots thinking that would immediately nullify such "this-worldly" optimism, particularly for honest, discerning Christians.  An image of a blackbird that looks similar to the one in the backyard. Blackbirds have always been a staple in my backyard, but the other day I spotted a peculiar new resident -- a black bird sporting a white head. At first I thought it was some unfamiliar species; however, after considerable scrutiny, I determined that the white-headed fellow is indeed a blackbird.
Turns out he's a blackbird with leucism, a condition that causes a partial loss of pigmentation, particularly in the feathers. It's the first time I have encountered this sort of thing in birds. I have found Dr. Charlton’s posts concerning First Creation and Second Creation particularly clarifying and helpful in my understanding of the role of freedom, particularly as it pertains to the First Creation being opt-out and the Second Creation being opt-in.
On the matter of Primary Creation, Dr. Charlon notes: The primary creation was imposed-upon the pre-existing and eternal Beings by God. This imposition was by necessity. Before creation, Beings existed in isolation and without relationships - thus direction, purpose, and meaning in a creation based-upon Love emerged only after primary creation. In this sense, also, freedom and the capacity for an agency based on distinguishing the self from the not-self was only possible post-creation. (i.e. We cannot know we are a self until after we know of other selves.) Therefore, it was impossible for any Being to opt-out of creation, until after creation, because there could be no consent to creation, nor of 'opting', until after creation had-happened -- hence the necessity for its imposition. Readers of this blog know my assumptions regarding the primacy of freedom. These assumptions made me wary of Dr. Charlton’s argument for the necessary imposition of creation. If freedom is primary and sacred, then God the Father’s imposition amounts to little more than a divine encroachment upon that freedom. The only way to avoid such encroachment would be through consent, so I leaned more toward the idea that beings consented to creation in some way rather than having creation imposed upon them. However, Dr. Charlton’s notion of a necessary imposition began making more sense to me as I began to consider the state in which beings existed before creation— Beings in isolation and without relationships. Freedom was primary, to the point that freedom was all there was and could not be actively utilized for much of anything. Before creation, beings were free to the point that they had little to no self-consciousness, let alone any awareness of other selves. Primordial chaos then was a state of unordered, undirected, unaware freedom. Beings within such a state of existence would not be capable of consenting to anything. Hence, the need for divine imposition. In primary creation (which was all of creation before the advent of Jesus Christ) God operates as a power acting-upon us, i.e. upon Beings. In a sense; God does creation to us. Living in creation is therefore the default situation; from-which we would need to opt-out if we did not want it. This imposed-creation situation was recognized by all the old religions and still is recognized (at least implicitly) by those religions that have a supreme God but do not recognize the truth and desirability of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Old Gods, and the understanding of the ancient monotheistic God of the Hebrews or the later God of Islam - regard God as primarily power. And such a God of non-optional imposed-creation demands of us obedient service above all else - which goes-with a relationship as essentially one of awe, fear, submission, propitiation etc. That is; a relationship analogous to that of an ignorant peasant towards the absolute Emperor of vast domains. As I said; this attitude is a natural consequence of the primary creation in which creation was done to us. Our understanding-of and relationship-to God is of one who is done-to - who is insignificant; not one who participates-in, or who himself contributes something of substantive value. Thus, the divine imposition of the First Creation was a dictatorial act. In a recent post, I touched upon the traditional Christian assumptions of divine totalitarianism. In this sense, traditional assumptions concerning the non-optional quality of the First Creation are more or less correct. What traditional Christianity gets wrong—in my opinion—is creation from nothing. If we assume the truth of creatio ex nihilo, we have a God-or-nothing framework. We can never evolve beyond the divine imposition of the First Creation. Creatio ex nihilo makes divine totalitarianism fundamentally necessary, not just in the First Creation but also in the Second. Both creations can only be if God’s status as divine dictator is preserved. Challenge that assumption, and the cosmos collapses into chaos and disarray. Within the creatio ex nihilo framework, God alone creates something from nothing. Such power places God in an entirely distinct category of being. No, more than that. God is being. Creation, as a whole, is within God’s being. The big problem with creatio ex nihilo and its divine imposition boils down to motive. Traditional Christianity assumes God possesses no intrinsic motivations. To do so would be to mistake him for a being who lacks something or seeks further fulfillment. Traditional Christianity assumes that God’s will is always already fulfilled. He lacks nothing; he possesses everything. So, he is not motivated to do anything. He has always already done – is always already doing – all that he would do. Such assumptions become prickly when one considers God without creation. Traditional Christian theology solves this problem by abstractly playing around with concepts of time, yet there must have been a state when God was without creation or sans creation. If such a state existed, then God was already fulfilled. He did not need creation. This implies that the divine imposition of the First Creation was an epically gratuitous act. Sure, traditional Christianity goes on about things like love, but the creatio ex nihilo God did not need that love. He was fulfilled without it. Within the core tenets of traditional Christianity, with its insistence on creatio ex nihilo, the nature of God cannot change. Thus, the Second Creation offers little more than an extension of the divine imposition of the First Creation. We remain beings “who are done-to” not beings who are capable of truly participating creatively and contributing substantively. Dr. Charlton explains why this conceptualization of the Second Creation is errant: The secondary creation was made-to-happen by Jesus Christ; and this fundamentally changed our relation with God. The second creation was (for the first time) an opt-in situation and made God (potentially) the supreme beloved Father of a vast family -- rather than King of 'a people'. Since the second creation; God no longer requires or desires us to regard him as primarily a power, but a loving parent; God no longer requires our obedient submission to His imposed authority but invites our loving participation in his continuing work of creation. Loving participation in a continuing work of creation is not an option with a creatio ex nihilo God. The best option such a God offers is "loving participation" in divine totalitarianism. Moreover, the Second Creation changes nothing in this regard. The bulk of what constitutes traditional/classical Christian theology amounts to little more than an apologia and justification for divine totalitarianism—a centralized, dictatorial God requiring nothing more than subservience to his divine will.
How could it be otherwise? Once God is defined as an Abolute, omni-everything being who creates ex nihilo, the apologia and justification for divine totalitarianism are understandable and vital. The Westminster Confession of Faith provides a vivid example of God as totalitarian. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself allsufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them: he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, he is pleased to require of them. The passages above are not unique. Similar tracts exist in the creeds and doctrines of most denominations. All assert the same thing. God is completed and fulfilled. His Creation is also completed and fulfilled (we are not privy to the details). Hence, Christianity is, by default, a completed and fulfilled religion with but one requirement for its adherents—worship. Some philosophical humming and hawing over matters like freedom are permitted as long as they do not encroach upon God as Absolute. Questions concerning God’s motive for Creation are regarded as nonsensical because they contradict God’s eternally fulfilled and completed state of being. God lacks nothing, possesses everything; has no needs, no wants, and no desires. In a nutshell, God does not and cannot experience motivation. God has done, is doing, and will eternally do everything he does, all at the same time. Creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith reflect a mode of consciousness that regards totalitarianism as a positive ordering force. On top of that, totalitarianism completes and fulfills. If Christianity is a completed and fulfilled religion, then it is a religion of divine totalitarianism, very much like Islam. On the other hand, if Christianity is incomplete and unfulfilled, then Christians may have more to do in mortal life than worship. Moreover, the Christian God may not be as totalitarian as earlier Christianity assumed. And let’s not kid ourselves; creeds like the Westminster Confession are, ultimately, assumptions. Still, the prospect of incomplete, unfulfilled Christianity strikes most as unbearable. There’s an inherent, bearable lightness in divine totalitarianism. Undeniably so. |
Blog and Comments
Blog posts tend to be spontaneous, unpolished, first draft entries ranging from the insightful and periodically profound to the poorly-argued and occasionally disparaging. Comments are welcome but moderated. Please use your name or a pseudonym in comments. Emails welcome: f er en c ber g er (at) h otm ail (dot) co m Blogs/Sites I Read
Bruce Charlton's Notions Meeting the Masters Trees and Triads From The Narrow Desert New World Island New World Island YouTube Synlogos ✞ Aggregator Adam Piggott The Orthosphere nicholasberdyaev Archives
June 2026
|
RSS Feed
