I did answer, but I got rid of the thread before you could read it, maybe. I've reaffirmed my stance about keeping away from Notes, which is degenerating fast, but I'll be staying here, at least for now. I think Notes was a mistake on Substack's part, but it doesn't affect my ability to write here, or the quality of comments and readers (as you can see.)
I agree fully with your idea about the working towards Grace. You see the same in the medieval texts about chivalry, where the Arthurian Knights are always working towards a sense of perfection and ascension over their human and carnal sins. C. S. Lewis talks about this in his "Necessity of Chivalry" about the knight being a work of art, not of nature. Christianity works in a similar way. We are on a path of Grace and Enlightenment.
That said, one of the takeaways that I have always had from Mark Fisher's writing about communism and capitalism is that civilization and capitalism are inherently linked. The very bartering of goods between people creates even a primitive market economy. Humans are market creatures, I think simply because we build societies that are larger than family units. This is kind of where the philosophy of pushing away the Machine begins to get murky for me. At what point does the Machine need to be turned off? Is AI the bridge to far? Is it cars? Is it steel production? The cotton gin? The smelting of metals? In a lot of essays that Paul has written and that are written in this field there seems to be a desire to return to this conceived golden age of Christendom during the High Middle Ages, but even in that era there is a budding of art and science that leads directly into the Renaissance. The human explosion, and it is an explosion, begins I think with Egypt, Sumeria, and Babylon, can we really turn back the clock that far and would we want to?
Before I comment fully, I just wanted to note that all the links seem to be broken, it's call coming up with a "Sorry, this site is experiencing technical difficulties."
I worry that all this “go back” is naive romanticism which is not based in the actual historic terms, as people lived through the particular exigencies of their times, at all. If that makes me a rationalist so be it, I’m trained as a historian and so take this subject seriously.
This gets even murkier when you go to places in the world today that are far beyond the reach of The Machine and yet evil still lies there, too, it is no Eden, even at the heart of the most traditionalist cultures. (Speaking as a member of the female sex, we have always known this, painfully, in ways men have not.)
Absolutely The Machine must be opposed but It isn’t like the big boss at the end of a video game--the evil goes much further and deeper than that. I see The Machine as only one manifestation of The Adversary, the Sauron to Morgoth.
And to D. Stall who threw in the example of Charlemagne--whenever Christianity aligns with Empire and Power it is bad news, and you can trace that line all the way to Constantine which was Christianity’s first alignment with Empire.
I think this gets to my crux with a lot of the talk of the Machine and the solution moving forward. I think romanticism can have its place in novels and in inspiration to live better and more aware within the current system, but you make excellent points about how going back into the past might be a nightmare all in itself. The beauty of the contemporary moment is that even though, yes, there are screens everywhere and so much education leads me to challenge all manners of religion and governance, I thank my lucky stars that I don't HAVE to go fight in a war for the glories of some post-feudal monarch. As you covered what happens to women when wars returned to the home countries it needs not be said how poor women fared.
The thing is, there are places now that are not part of the Machine at all. The mountains of northern Thailand are such a place, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the interior forests of the Amazon and the Congo, and so on. But there are monsters in those places that most people who have even touched a smattering of a bourgeois lifestyle cannot handle.
True, but the 'we can't go back' story, which is one of the keystones of the Machine myth, is based on a false premise. Who is calling for anyone to 'go back' in any historical sense, or to recreate a particular historical period? Who, come to that, is claiming that all was rosy in the past? Certainly not me. I've never seen anyone else say this either; including the Romantics, incidentally.
All human cultures are full of pain and horror, as well as beauty and wonder. The question is what we have lost to build the Machine, and what it takes from us. It's usually a bragain. The position of women, for example, was arguably better in some periods of the past than it is today, other than for well-off Western women. Seems to me that today's women have been sold a lie of 'liberation' and turned into corporate cannon-fodder like the men. Mary Harrington is very good on this, and I tend to agree with her.
I do agree that the Machine is a manifestation of the adversary, or a certain tendency within the human heart. The serpent, in fact. I have been saying so since the beginning, possibly at too much length.
Just thought as I read this: "Eat the fruit. It’s your right. You’re worth it!"
- Satan was the first advertiser, and we have been plagued with constant (demonic - you are worth it, you need more, you are incomplete without this) advertising ever since.
And the moment after you buy/use it (like the moment after Adam bit the fruit and realised his nakedness), you lose that sense of "worth it" and therefore have to buy it again to become "worth it" again...and so forth.
The Apple logo has been plaguing me since I started reading The Abbey last year and listening to The Symbolic World with Jonathan Pageau. I can't believe that it's just a coincidence.
If you are reading Paul's material, then you probably have already considered the possibility that you shouldn't be using much of this technology at all. But for some of us, that is not an option. I reluctantly had to return to the technology field this year after an alternative job went south.
I don't think that any of the alternative tech brands will solve your dilemma as they are all awful.
Some suggestions that come to mind.
- Use as little technology as possible. Nobody really needs a watch or smart home devices or many of these other things.
- Make what you have to use last as long as possible and buy used.
- Spend as little time using technology as you are able.
The apple with the bite taken out on one side of your smartphone is a cosmic pun. For on the other is a black mirror, a reflection of yourself, created in your own image according to the imperatives of the self. Look into the mirror and you become God.
I'd recommend the book in any case because it's marvelous, but Steven Millhauser's novel, "Martin Dressler," has a Satan figure whose domain is his New York City advertising agency.
Actually Paul ad libbed most of that . The serpent said "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". Which is fascinating , do we then possess the ability to know good and evil inherently since that day. Except we aren't mature enough to act appropriately on it?
Love it the contemporary reference, to capitalistic consumer culture. But what the snake said was more fascinating and perhaps more important. He said surely you won't die ( a lie ) and then if you eat of the fruit you'll be like God knowing good and evil. This later statement is at least partly true .... it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve did eat of it. So who can tell me more about this ability to know good and evil humanity gained at that time. Where are it fruits for us still? Did we truly take a step toward God hood at that point? We were already made in his/ their image so that must have been an inherent possibility from the beginning. Also didn't Jesus say you shall be as Gods ? For me there is something mysterious and still hidden about this whole story in the Garden.
The heart of the matter indeed!!! This was just a brilliant summation of the essential conflict/tension that we can sense so clearly these days. How is it that so often I read your words and get the sense of YES, PRECISELY in a way that gets me up out of my chair and makes me walk off the energy so I can focus. ;-) I hope Paul that you have a sense of just how much help your new (for you) Christian insight/synthesis is to many of us lifers for who you are pointing to the thread that is right before us but we often miss! This Sunday is Pentecost and some of your points will backdrop what I have to offer to our people to ponder as it relates to the Spirit and the Spirit of the Age. Peace and Blessing to you and your family
Oh man, at the end of that talk, I didn't want to pray, I wanted to jump up on the couch and yell "THAT'S IT! THAT'S IT!!" but my kids were finally asleep.
Hey, Paul. I just wanted to tell you I watched your talk when it came out. I thought it was as good a summation of where we are that I have heard. For those like me who consider ourselves atheist/non-religious but know there's something real that exists (I call it The Force like in the movie, it's the best definition I have) I think you presented a very real and practical challenge. You went down the eco rabbit hole. I went down the new atheism rabbit hole. Others are on similar paths. When you said this at the end, it really struck a chord with me. Very well said and there is much for the likes of me to think about:
"Our challenge now is to choose our religion. Try to avoid the challenge and your faith will be chosen for you: you will be absorbed by default into the new creed of the new age: the quest to build the digital Tower of Babel. The attempt to “build god” and replace nature through technology. The path of the snake.
What can we do when there’s nothing left to conserve? Pray."
What does one do when there is nothing left to conserve? Why, one builds anew!
There was so much in "tradition" that was bad and wrong anyways and needed to be destroyed. We forget that modernity "emerged" from tradition, so people obviously were not satisfied.
*Christendom " in particular was an unstable compromise between power and spirit that never could have survived - Jesus message was in direct opposition to the social and economic institutions of Christendom, as Paul Kingsnorth himself vividly observed in his recent comment that the Vatican struck him as representing something in stark opposition to the true spirit of Christianity.
We have a marvellous opportunity now to go back to the Gospels and recover it's true message freed from the encrustations of political compromise and social necessity.
Ian Mcgilchrist has a wonderful discussion of how it may be necessary to break something in order to put it back in a better and richer form, and he cited aspects of Japanese culture and Kabbalah that illustrate this insight.
We ought to recover what was good in tradition and build up on it and develop it, of course, but the idea that tradition was the final form of perfection seems absurd and is against the spirit of Christianity, which sees the eschaton and the Kingdom of Heaven in the future (and now within us as a potentiality at all times, of course), as more and more of God's Divine plan is revealed. The story ain't over yet.
The veneration of tradition as the ultimate form of perfection - family, nation, ancestors, race - was always a more Pagan attitude, like the conservative Romans, that makes no sense in the far larger and more capacious Christian conception, which goes beyond any such sublunary concerns.
Very good points there, especially about Christendom being directly tied to the medieval conceptions of statehood and royal power. But while I agree that there is a lot about tradition that needs to be thrown out or redefined, the question of living fully to the Gospel is can it be done by the large swaths of people that we want to see. It requires going back to the Earth, leaving wealth and comfort behind. I think that is a tall order for the majority of people, but it would be nice to see from a small group of us.
I think what would be interesting if we could make monastic living a bit more desired, and show the richness of living in that way. The old knightly orders did it as well. The question would be, how do you bring that kind of perspective to the masses?
Right, I think we've lost any conception of the the life of contemplation as an "ideal" - and one that sits at the apex of society's pyramid of values, and even if comparatively few people fully practice it, spreads it's light over society as a whole and infuses the behavior of the ordinary non-monastic people with it's sense of what's ultimately important.
But it goes so against the grain! I recently read a wonderful book by Alexander Schemmann, For the Life of the World, where he says that the true Christian life is one of "adoration" - of God, and as he's reflected in nature and the world. Not the life of action, not the life of appropriating and controlling the world, but of contemplating it's wonder and beauty.
Yet the modern world is obsessed with action and control - so how to once again restore the correct perspective? The modern world considers contemplation and appreciation "frivolous", because only controlling - action - has value.
It's a problem. I confess I have had no success in convincing anyone that contemplating the beauty and wonder of God's creation is actually the more "serious" and important task - and that controlling the world is always a secondary task geared towards mere physical survival, and why survive at all if not to adore and appreciate God's beauty?
Really like the idea of having to connect back with the sublime. I think it's why the Buddhists look at those who become monks with such reverence because through their cycles of reincarnation, this soul has finally traveled enough to be so centered that they can go into monastic living.
I think just getting off of our screens and existing in the natural world is a huge first step.
I think monasticism is a mistake, particularly in Christianity, which asserts that faith without works is dead. At least monasticism as currently done: I know of one guy who has a career yet lives out of a minivan because he donates most of his income to charity. That is a sort of monasticism, and one more true to Jesus than what monks are doing.
What makes you think than monastics have no works? They pray for the rest of us, for one thing, and that's surely a good work. They also engage in a lot of charitable work, and often in hospitality as well.
The Benedictine Rule, if I rightly recall, ordered the day into thirds: one third to rest, one third to worship and contemplation, one third to work (agriculture, cooking, the mill, etc). This, they declared constituted the "rightly ordered life."
I think that's a very modern mistake - modernity does not believe in the supernatural but only in the visibly material.
The prayers and the spiritual work of a monastic sends spiritual ripples throughout the world that affects everything on the supernatural level. One human being living closer to the Divine ideal affects everyone and brings the Divine energy closer to earth. It's a kind of "theurgy". For the sake of one righteous man the world exists - the more people living true the better it is for everyone, so the hermit in the cave is more important than anything.
Not all "works" pertain to the visibly material, as the modern world would have it.
I believe a solitary individual hiking in nature and enjoying it's beauty and wonder is bringing tremendous spiritual benefit upon all of mankind. Everything is connected. Similarly, those who do evil lower the spiritual level of the whole world. The battle is fought spiritually.
Of course, giving to the poor is wonderful and necessary, but helping the world spiritually transform will help create a world in which there are no poor.
So the individual connecting to the Divine brings blessings upon all mankind.
I don't know, it's very easy to delude oneself with this stuff, very easy to just believe one's prayer and isolation is actually causally efficacious. It's certainly not clothing and feeding the brethren, which Jesus said was the same as clothing and feeding (or not clothing and not feeding) him.
Carlos, monasticism arose very early in the Church and was a well-established practice by the 4th century—which was about the same time that Christians created the first hospitals. The primary work of monastics is liturgy/prayer. As a lay Christian, I am so very thankful for their workforce prayer, which is just as important as the work done by us doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers, mothers, artists, builders, etc. The monastics’ work of liturgy/prayer is a source of comfort and strength to the Church as the laity work in the world. We are all one body with different parts and functions with Christ as our Head.
Monasticism is not 'faith without works', for any number of reasons. The faith/works argument is alien to Orthodox Christians, arising as it does from the Reformation, which the Orthodox see as a family squabble within the Roman church.
Faith without works comes from the Bible though. I don't know how when the monastics got started they squared away what they were doing with that line. What are the works of a guy living alone in a cave? Another commenter claimed their spiritual work actually has effects on the world, but as the Orthodox know, spiritual delusion is a thing, and just because someone believes their spirituality is for real doesn't mean that it is. It is only through acts that one can confirm whether one is deluded or not. Sure, they wouldn't agree with me calling monasticism spiritual delusion, but Muhammad is with me and he is a greater authority than the Orthodox church (though, of course, adjudicating who is the greater of Jesus and Muhammad is a thorny question. I lean towards Jesus, but I don't think it's obvious Jesus instituted anything like monasticism, nor do I think any particular church is commensurate with Jesus).
"That is a sort of monasticism, and one more true to Jesus than what monks are doing."
You're judging based on your own limited insight as if you know based on externals what is in peoples' hearts. Or as if you knew that these monks didn't have any works (even according to your own definition). You sound like you haven't even been to a monastery and spent time with monastics.
"I don't know how when the monastics got started they squared away what they were doing with that line."
Jesus was baptised by a forerunner of the monastics. His Mother was consecrated to God as a child in the Temple and did nothing but serve Him until she gave birth. Thereafter she lived in virginity. St Paul talks positively both about marriage but also virginity, going so far as to recommend the latter if one has the ability to live this type of life. Monasticism is not something that appeared all of a sudden in complete contradiction to everything that came before it. Also monasticism is not one rigid thing, such as living in a cave. There is much diversity, some monastics were much closer to St John's type of ascetisicsm in the wilderness. Others were more akin to St Paul and were preaching and serving in the world.
"What are the works of a guy living alone in a cave?"
When man realises how spiritually impoverished he is, and the wiles of the enemy, he realises his immediate task is to put on the full armour of God and go into battle for the one thing that is needful. Christ Himself said "Nevertheless, this kind only goes out by prayer and fasting". The monastery and the cave offer an opportunity par excellence to engage in this spiritual struggle. The paradox is that if the monastic emerges from this struggle freed from the passions he actually has something that can be shared with the rest of the world. Either through the power of his intecessory prayers, or by the counsel he can share which comes from illumination by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing selfish about the monastic life. It only seems pointless to people who don't actually realise what is at stake and think they are spiritually health already. Such people haven't even set out on the path of holiness yet.
"Another commenter claimed their spiritual work actually has effects on the world, but as the Orthodox know, spiritual delusion is a thing, and just because someone believes their spirituality is for real doesn't mean that it is. It is only through acts that one can confirm whether one is deluded or not."
It's not by acts that we know, people can do the right acts externally for selfish or egotistical reasons (worldy glory, the praise of others, societal status etc). Spiritual delusion actually typically comes from pridefully equating one's acts with a measure of holiness. The Bible talks about people being known by their fruits and that one can do good works with the wrong motivation and not out of sacrificial love. You also have to revist your definition of acts - prayer is also an act. Works are not just externally visible things happening on the street. The other key Orthodox belief which is important here is the necessity of obedience. If one has obedience, he is protected from delusion, even if his spiritual guide errs. This is ignored by moderns because they can't accept that they can be guided by anyone but themselves and they are therefore ripe for delusion.
"I don't think it's obvious Jesus instituted anything like monasticism, nor do I think any particular church is commensurate with Jesus)."
This is mental acrobatics and logically incoherent. Christ instituted the Church, which represents the starting point for everything that we know about Christ and how to live in a Christ-like manner. The New Testament came from the Church. If you don't accept monasticism because you don't accept the Church's authority, there's no basis upon which to accept the New Testament without being arbitrary. Once you reject the Church you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that you just have the Scriptures in a vacuum with no justification of why one should accept them and no guidance on interpreting them.
'Faith without works' is a line from St Paul, referring to a very specific situation in an early church in the middle east. It's not the basis of a whole theory, or shouldn't be. As for Muhammad being a 'greater authority' that the church of Christ .... er, no, sorry! There is no 'thorny question' there, especially for a Christian.
The Orthodox church, incidentally (and the Catholics) is quite clear about the benefits of monasticism. You can find out what they are if you go looking.
The line “faith without works is dead” comes from St. James 2:14-26:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I wouldn't try to minimize the 'faith without works' line by making it seem like it's so contextual as to be meaningless. As to Muhammad... Well, the church of Christ is not actually Christ, which is why there are all the divisions and strife, among other things. Unless you want to say the Orthodox are the only true church, but even there I've heard there is strife between the Russian Orthodox and the rest.
The spiritual development of the followers of any religion just doesn't equal that of someone who received a religion-sized revelation. Unless you think Muhammad was fake, but then, you previously said you would break bread with anyone, and that's tricky to do if you think these others are all profoundly deluded.
Which can sound like my conceit to be fair, except I don't think Christ was wrong or fake, it's really more about whether monasticism was Christ's intent or not.
Resorting to whatever spiritual development I have attained, I say action is the seal of authentic spirituality, because without action, one's spirituality is entirely within, and one's own mind is the realm of delusion. It is only by attempting to manifest the spirit that one finds out how much of the spirit is actually within.
I pretty much agree with all of this. Collapse - which is what we're living through - is a necessary and in a way cheerful challenge. We talked a lot at the weekend about apocalypse - revelation - performing the same function: revealing what is really there, which makes it impossible to go back. This is why I am so intrigued by the cave Christians, the early ascetics, the desert fathers etc. At another time of collapse, they stripped the essence of Christian traidtion right back, and built anew with no thought of building at all. Now it's our turn.
I was reading that the Desert Fathers were a sort of counter cultural protest against the growing marriage between Christianity and political power and it's institutionalization, a sort of last impulse of original Christianity before Christendom emerged. I like that perspective a lot. But now it's our turn, and a newly revitalized Christianity will similarly have to be a protest against institutionalized Christianity and a recovery of the original spirit of Christianity. And it's very much a cheerful task!
Absolutely. Anthony gave all his wealth away and fled to the tombs in response to Christianity's new comfortable status post-Constantine. Martyrdom had been vital to Christian life, and it was now mostly impossible. He decided to create a new route to it.
It’s time to read St. Augustine’s City of God, the version edited by Hans Urs von Balthasar (it’s not as long as the Dods version). I know it’s on your reading list. At least Augustine didn’t have to deal with AI and the Machine, otherwise he would have written another 10 volumes.
Nothing is 'perfect.' Often the destruction of traditional cultures arises from greed, lust and vainglory. The example of enclosure and the consequent industrial revolution in England, which I've written about here, is one illustration of that. Tradition is wilfully destroyed for money and power. Those who resist this are the 'reactionary radicals' I have also written about.
I was down in Victoria BC staying with a friend for two weeks. My reason for the 12 hour drive was to see Martin Shaw deliver powerful stories to a myth hungry audience. It was glorious. I had so many thoughts after I left the venue. Many thoughts about the stories Martin shared, especially the one about what happens to the world when you bury the Feminine, the Divine Feminine. But also many thoughts from seeing the diverse crowd of people at the event and their response to these Sacred Stories. I’m going to have to jot down some of them at some point. On my travel home I was excited to listen to this episode of Unherd. I grabbed my coffee waited for a portion of the drive that settled into the lonely trek, away from Vancouver traffic, down the Gold Rush Trail. Twenty minutes later it was over! 😳 Haha. I actually said out loud, “That was far too short!”. ( I think I may have even screamed it) But upon relistening I was amazed at the amount of information you were able to pack in there Paul. It was eloquent, interesting, and right on the money! A real testimony to the years long journey you have been on, it came from the heart, not the head. I’ve decided if anyone has any questions about the Christian story and/or The Machine ( who are inextricably linked) I’ll be sending them this talk. Well done! Quite the accomplishment really! I will be watching for the Q and A with you and Mary and two hours sounds heavenly. Thank you, for being who God made you.
Thank you for being one of the courageous prophets speaking against the darkness. I'm shocked (I don't know why) by how many people have invited AI into their lives already. People who say, "I recognize the danger, but..."
"I use it to write my business emails"
"I let my homeschooled kids use it for research"
"I ask it questions out of curiosity"
The Church has usually viewed technology as a neutral tool, so I'll be shocked if we receive guidance from any religious leaders telling us to completely reject AI.
Erica, I share your incomprehension about the nonchalance of at least some Christians toward AI. Everyone else I suppose I expect varying degrees of enthusiasm for AI from. The fact that people whom I know to be Christian ( and engineering/tech guys, at that ) have welcomed it into their lives shocks me.
Still looking pretty much in vain for some guidance on the AI thing from my Orthodox leaders. To be honest, when the AI geniuses seem to have little idea of its future, I'm guessing that my religious shepherds are either in denial or totally confused.
Boy. Isn't that the truth! I've watched a couple dozen, or so, interviews with these AI guys and I can just barely get my head around what it all means.
Another Substack author I read, Luke Burgis (Anti-Mimetic) brought the following video to my attention: https://youtu.be/jNT4Ypr4yg8
I too had been lamenting the seeming lack of awareness among Christians (Catholics in particular in my case) about the threats of AI, as the culmination of the Machine’s telos. Bishop Barron’s message is a start - I haven’t watched the series he’s reviewing but might do so. Stories - we need to tell good stories.
One of my favorite takes on the serpent in the garden is CS Lewis’ Perelandra, it’s Lewis imagining what the whole dialogue was like, in a way. Fascinating!
Regarding Christendom, y’all might be interested in Doug Wilson’s new book, Mere Christendom, which he describes as an attempt to think through Christendom 2.0. Here’s a fun podcast with the Babylon Bee about it:
And in the self-promotion department, I think y’all might like this piece on how the religious worldview used to permeate our school system (like you say, it wasn’t “religion”, it was everyday life) and this has become so foreign to our thinking that even our most sensitive historians miss the point. McCullough’s mistake, or There is No Neutral:
You mention Babel. As others have said, Pentecost is fast approaching, the day when all tongues spoke as one, the day the Lord reversed Babel! Think of it, only 120 Christians facing a world - a whole world! - that didn’t know Christ… and God, through the Holy Spirit, laid the foundations for all Christendom to rise. Pray indeed! Do not despair!
Good talk, and I appreciate the thoughtful comments in the thread. Themes that resonate with me: the need for humility. For awareness of that which is greater and beyond the human. The advice to pray, which is a way of saying that Western religion/spirituality needs to be imbued with daily practice.
Thank you, Paul – that is the heart of the matter, isn't it – what IS the heart of the matter? And the dust has not yet settled on that issue. At least as far as humankind is concerned. But in naming Christ Jesus you go right to the heart of it.
I did answer, but I got rid of the thread before you could read it, maybe. I've reaffirmed my stance about keeping away from Notes, which is degenerating fast, but I'll be staying here, at least for now. I think Notes was a mistake on Substack's part, but it doesn't affect my ability to write here, or the quality of comments and readers (as you can see.)
D. Stall,
I agree fully with your idea about the working towards Grace. You see the same in the medieval texts about chivalry, where the Arthurian Knights are always working towards a sense of perfection and ascension over their human and carnal sins. C. S. Lewis talks about this in his "Necessity of Chivalry" about the knight being a work of art, not of nature. Christianity works in a similar way. We are on a path of Grace and Enlightenment.
That said, one of the takeaways that I have always had from Mark Fisher's writing about communism and capitalism is that civilization and capitalism are inherently linked. The very bartering of goods between people creates even a primitive market economy. Humans are market creatures, I think simply because we build societies that are larger than family units. This is kind of where the philosophy of pushing away the Machine begins to get murky for me. At what point does the Machine need to be turned off? Is AI the bridge to far? Is it cars? Is it steel production? The cotton gin? The smelting of metals? In a lot of essays that Paul has written and that are written in this field there seems to be a desire to return to this conceived golden age of Christendom during the High Middle Ages, but even in that era there is a budding of art and science that leads directly into the Renaissance. The human explosion, and it is an explosion, begins I think with Egypt, Sumeria, and Babylon, can we really turn back the clock that far and would we want to?
Before I comment fully, I just wanted to note that all the links seem to be broken, it's call coming up with a "Sorry, this site is experiencing technical difficulties."
I worry that all this “go back” is naive romanticism which is not based in the actual historic terms, as people lived through the particular exigencies of their times, at all. If that makes me a rationalist so be it, I’m trained as a historian and so take this subject seriously.
This gets even murkier when you go to places in the world today that are far beyond the reach of The Machine and yet evil still lies there, too, it is no Eden, even at the heart of the most traditionalist cultures. (Speaking as a member of the female sex, we have always known this, painfully, in ways men have not.)
Absolutely The Machine must be opposed but It isn’t like the big boss at the end of a video game--the evil goes much further and deeper than that. I see The Machine as only one manifestation of The Adversary, the Sauron to Morgoth.
And to D. Stall who threw in the example of Charlemagne--whenever Christianity aligns with Empire and Power it is bad news, and you can trace that line all the way to Constantine which was Christianity’s first alignment with Empire.
Sarah,
I think this gets to my crux with a lot of the talk of the Machine and the solution moving forward. I think romanticism can have its place in novels and in inspiration to live better and more aware within the current system, but you make excellent points about how going back into the past might be a nightmare all in itself. The beauty of the contemporary moment is that even though, yes, there are screens everywhere and so much education leads me to challenge all manners of religion and governance, I thank my lucky stars that I don't HAVE to go fight in a war for the glories of some post-feudal monarch. As you covered what happens to women when wars returned to the home countries it needs not be said how poor women fared.
The thing is, there are places now that are not part of the Machine at all. The mountains of northern Thailand are such a place, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the interior forests of the Amazon and the Congo, and so on. But there are monsters in those places that most people who have even touched a smattering of a bourgeois lifestyle cannot handle.
True, but the 'we can't go back' story, which is one of the keystones of the Machine myth, is based on a false premise. Who is calling for anyone to 'go back' in any historical sense, or to recreate a particular historical period? Who, come to that, is claiming that all was rosy in the past? Certainly not me. I've never seen anyone else say this either; including the Romantics, incidentally.
All human cultures are full of pain and horror, as well as beauty and wonder. The question is what we have lost to build the Machine, and what it takes from us. It's usually a bragain. The position of women, for example, was arguably better in some periods of the past than it is today, other than for well-off Western women. Seems to me that today's women have been sold a lie of 'liberation' and turned into corporate cannon-fodder like the men. Mary Harrington is very good on this, and I tend to agree with her.
I do agree that the Machine is a manifestation of the adversary, or a certain tendency within the human heart. The serpent, in fact. I have been saying so since the beginning, possibly at too much length.
Just thought as I read this: "Eat the fruit. It’s your right. You’re worth it!"
- Satan was the first advertiser, and we have been plagued with constant (demonic - you are worth it, you need more, you are incomplete without this) advertising ever since.
"You're worth it. You deserve it."
And the moment after you buy/use it (like the moment after Adam bit the fruit and realised his nakedness), you lose that sense of "worth it" and therefore have to buy it again to become "worth it" again...and so forth.
...and that's how we follow the snake out of the garden!
I wonder if there is more in the Apple logo than meets the eye!
You are most likely right!
The Apple logo has been plaguing me since I started reading The Abbey last year and listening to The Symbolic World with Jonathan Pageau. I can't believe that it's just a coincidence.
Look up the price of the Apple 1.
I had no idea... Fascinating.
Help. Do I buy from Apple? What else can I do?
If you are reading Paul's material, then you probably have already considered the possibility that you shouldn't be using much of this technology at all. But for some of us, that is not an option. I reluctantly had to return to the technology field this year after an alternative job went south.
I don't think that any of the alternative tech brands will solve your dilemma as they are all awful.
Some suggestions that come to mind.
- Use as little technology as possible. Nobody really needs a watch or smart home devices or many of these other things.
- Make what you have to use last as long as possible and buy used.
- Spend as little time using technology as you are able.
The apple with the bite taken out on one side of your smartphone is a cosmic pun. For on the other is a black mirror, a reflection of yourself, created in your own image according to the imperatives of the self. Look into the mirror and you become God.
Too close for comfort.
wow, well said!
All that needed to be done was to get Eve to buy into the delusion of the word "you" and it was over. Out of the garden right there.
Pretty funny but not actually what the snake was reported to have said in Genesis :)
I'd recommend the book in any case because it's marvelous, but Steven Millhauser's novel, "Martin Dressler," has a Satan figure whose domain is his New York City advertising agency.
Actually Paul ad libbed most of that . The serpent said "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil". Which is fascinating , do we then possess the ability to know good and evil inherently since that day. Except we aren't mature enough to act appropriately on it?
Love it the contemporary reference, to capitalistic consumer culture. But what the snake said was more fascinating and perhaps more important. He said surely you won't die ( a lie ) and then if you eat of the fruit you'll be like God knowing good and evil. This later statement is at least partly true .... it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and Adam and Eve did eat of it. So who can tell me more about this ability to know good and evil humanity gained at that time. Where are it fruits for us still? Did we truly take a step toward God hood at that point? We were already made in his/ their image so that must have been an inherent possibility from the beginning. Also didn't Jesus say you shall be as Gods ? For me there is something mysterious and still hidden about this whole story in the Garden.
This is why the Church is useful. It can explain all of this to you.
Many thanks for the distillation. Extremely helpful and shareable!
"Pray" - now that's a closing statement!
And also, "prey" via the auto-text.
The heart of the matter indeed!!! This was just a brilliant summation of the essential conflict/tension that we can sense so clearly these days. How is it that so often I read your words and get the sense of YES, PRECISELY in a way that gets me up out of my chair and makes me walk off the energy so I can focus. ;-) I hope Paul that you have a sense of just how much help your new (for you) Christian insight/synthesis is to many of us lifers for who you are pointing to the thread that is right before us but we often miss! This Sunday is Pentecost and some of your points will backdrop what I have to offer to our people to ponder as it relates to the Spirit and the Spirit of the Age. Peace and Blessing to you and your family
Oh man, at the end of that talk, I didn't want to pray, I wanted to jump up on the couch and yell "THAT'S IT! THAT'S IT!!" but my kids were finally asleep.
But was it the talk that sent them to sleep ...?
No, it was them being blissfully unaware of the abyss into which you looked and told us we'd better pray!!
Nobody could have slept through that talk...the dog that seemed to have come up, maybe :)
Your talk articulated what I have been feeling. This is why I felt it was so urgent to 'choose my religion'.
I did, and like yourself I ended up in an Orthodox church.
When I stand there on a Sunday morning, the church feels like a calm oasis in a sea of madness.
Hey, Paul. I just wanted to tell you I watched your talk when it came out. I thought it was as good a summation of where we are that I have heard. For those like me who consider ourselves atheist/non-religious but know there's something real that exists (I call it The Force like in the movie, it's the best definition I have) I think you presented a very real and practical challenge. You went down the eco rabbit hole. I went down the new atheism rabbit hole. Others are on similar paths. When you said this at the end, it really struck a chord with me. Very well said and there is much for the likes of me to think about:
"Our challenge now is to choose our religion. Try to avoid the challenge and your faith will be chosen for you: you will be absorbed by default into the new creed of the new age: the quest to build the digital Tower of Babel. The attempt to “build god” and replace nature through technology. The path of the snake.
What can we do when there’s nothing left to conserve? Pray."
Praying
What does one do when there is nothing left to conserve? Why, one builds anew!
There was so much in "tradition" that was bad and wrong anyways and needed to be destroyed. We forget that modernity "emerged" from tradition, so people obviously were not satisfied.
*Christendom " in particular was an unstable compromise between power and spirit that never could have survived - Jesus message was in direct opposition to the social and economic institutions of Christendom, as Paul Kingsnorth himself vividly observed in his recent comment that the Vatican struck him as representing something in stark opposition to the true spirit of Christianity.
We have a marvellous opportunity now to go back to the Gospels and recover it's true message freed from the encrustations of political compromise and social necessity.
Ian Mcgilchrist has a wonderful discussion of how it may be necessary to break something in order to put it back in a better and richer form, and he cited aspects of Japanese culture and Kabbalah that illustrate this insight.
We ought to recover what was good in tradition and build up on it and develop it, of course, but the idea that tradition was the final form of perfection seems absurd and is against the spirit of Christianity, which sees the eschaton and the Kingdom of Heaven in the future (and now within us as a potentiality at all times, of course), as more and more of God's Divine plan is revealed. The story ain't over yet.
The veneration of tradition as the ultimate form of perfection - family, nation, ancestors, race - was always a more Pagan attitude, like the conservative Romans, that makes no sense in the far larger and more capacious Christian conception, which goes beyond any such sublunary concerns.
Benjamin,
Very good points there, especially about Christendom being directly tied to the medieval conceptions of statehood and royal power. But while I agree that there is a lot about tradition that needs to be thrown out or redefined, the question of living fully to the Gospel is can it be done by the large swaths of people that we want to see. It requires going back to the Earth, leaving wealth and comfort behind. I think that is a tall order for the majority of people, but it would be nice to see from a small group of us.
I think what would be interesting if we could make monastic living a bit more desired, and show the richness of living in that way. The old knightly orders did it as well. The question would be, how do you bring that kind of perspective to the masses?
Right, I think we've lost any conception of the the life of contemplation as an "ideal" - and one that sits at the apex of society's pyramid of values, and even if comparatively few people fully practice it, spreads it's light over society as a whole and infuses the behavior of the ordinary non-monastic people with it's sense of what's ultimately important.
But it goes so against the grain! I recently read a wonderful book by Alexander Schemmann, For the Life of the World, where he says that the true Christian life is one of "adoration" - of God, and as he's reflected in nature and the world. Not the life of action, not the life of appropriating and controlling the world, but of contemplating it's wonder and beauty.
Yet the modern world is obsessed with action and control - so how to once again restore the correct perspective? The modern world considers contemplation and appreciation "frivolous", because only controlling - action - has value.
It's a problem. I confess I have had no success in convincing anyone that contemplating the beauty and wonder of God's creation is actually the more "serious" and important task - and that controlling the world is always a secondary task geared towards mere physical survival, and why survive at all if not to adore and appreciate God's beauty?
Really like the idea of having to connect back with the sublime. I think it's why the Buddhists look at those who become monks with such reverence because through their cycles of reincarnation, this soul has finally traveled enough to be so centered that they can go into monastic living.
I think just getting off of our screens and existing in the natural world is a huge first step.
As a fairly new Orthodox convert about 15 years ago, Schmemann's book open my eyes, heart, and mind. Or the nous, as we say!
I think monasticism is a mistake, particularly in Christianity, which asserts that faith without works is dead. At least monasticism as currently done: I know of one guy who has a career yet lives out of a minivan because he donates most of his income to charity. That is a sort of monasticism, and one more true to Jesus than what monks are doing.
What makes you think than monastics have no works? They pray for the rest of us, for one thing, and that's surely a good work. They also engage in a lot of charitable work, and often in hospitality as well.
The Benedictine Rule, if I rightly recall, ordered the day into thirds: one third to rest, one third to worship and contemplation, one third to work (agriculture, cooking, the mill, etc). This, they declared constituted the "rightly ordered life."
I think that's a very modern mistake - modernity does not believe in the supernatural but only in the visibly material.
The prayers and the spiritual work of a monastic sends spiritual ripples throughout the world that affects everything on the supernatural level. One human being living closer to the Divine ideal affects everyone and brings the Divine energy closer to earth. It's a kind of "theurgy". For the sake of one righteous man the world exists - the more people living true the better it is for everyone, so the hermit in the cave is more important than anything.
Not all "works" pertain to the visibly material, as the modern world would have it.
I believe a solitary individual hiking in nature and enjoying it's beauty and wonder is bringing tremendous spiritual benefit upon all of mankind. Everything is connected. Similarly, those who do evil lower the spiritual level of the whole world. The battle is fought spiritually.
Of course, giving to the poor is wonderful and necessary, but helping the world spiritually transform will help create a world in which there are no poor.
So the individual connecting to the Divine brings blessings upon all mankind.
I don't know, it's very easy to delude oneself with this stuff, very easy to just believe one's prayer and isolation is actually causally efficacious. It's certainly not clothing and feeding the brethren, which Jesus said was the same as clothing and feeding (or not clothing and not feeding) him.
Carlos, monasticism arose very early in the Church and was a well-established practice by the 4th century—which was about the same time that Christians created the first hospitals. The primary work of monastics is liturgy/prayer. As a lay Christian, I am so very thankful for their workforce prayer, which is just as important as the work done by us doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers, mothers, artists, builders, etc. The monastics’ work of liturgy/prayer is a source of comfort and strength to the Church as the laity work in the world. We are all one body with different parts and functions with Christ as our Head.
In my comment above, it should say “work of” where it says “workforce”. 🙃
You might as well say that all prayer is a lie and a delusion.
Monasticism is not 'faith without works', for any number of reasons. The faith/works argument is alien to Orthodox Christians, arising as it does from the Reformation, which the Orthodox see as a family squabble within the Roman church.
Faith without works comes from the Bible though. I don't know how when the monastics got started they squared away what they were doing with that line. What are the works of a guy living alone in a cave? Another commenter claimed their spiritual work actually has effects on the world, but as the Orthodox know, spiritual delusion is a thing, and just because someone believes their spirituality is for real doesn't mean that it is. It is only through acts that one can confirm whether one is deluded or not. Sure, they wouldn't agree with me calling monasticism spiritual delusion, but Muhammad is with me and he is a greater authority than the Orthodox church (though, of course, adjudicating who is the greater of Jesus and Muhammad is a thorny question. I lean towards Jesus, but I don't think it's obvious Jesus instituted anything like monasticism, nor do I think any particular church is commensurate with Jesus).
"That is a sort of monasticism, and one more true to Jesus than what monks are doing."
You're judging based on your own limited insight as if you know based on externals what is in peoples' hearts. Or as if you knew that these monks didn't have any works (even according to your own definition). You sound like you haven't even been to a monastery and spent time with monastics.
"I don't know how when the monastics got started they squared away what they were doing with that line."
Jesus was baptised by a forerunner of the monastics. His Mother was consecrated to God as a child in the Temple and did nothing but serve Him until she gave birth. Thereafter she lived in virginity. St Paul talks positively both about marriage but also virginity, going so far as to recommend the latter if one has the ability to live this type of life. Monasticism is not something that appeared all of a sudden in complete contradiction to everything that came before it. Also monasticism is not one rigid thing, such as living in a cave. There is much diversity, some monastics were much closer to St John's type of ascetisicsm in the wilderness. Others were more akin to St Paul and were preaching and serving in the world.
"What are the works of a guy living alone in a cave?"
When man realises how spiritually impoverished he is, and the wiles of the enemy, he realises his immediate task is to put on the full armour of God and go into battle for the one thing that is needful. Christ Himself said "Nevertheless, this kind only goes out by prayer and fasting". The monastery and the cave offer an opportunity par excellence to engage in this spiritual struggle. The paradox is that if the monastic emerges from this struggle freed from the passions he actually has something that can be shared with the rest of the world. Either through the power of his intecessory prayers, or by the counsel he can share which comes from illumination by the Holy Spirit. There is nothing selfish about the monastic life. It only seems pointless to people who don't actually realise what is at stake and think they are spiritually health already. Such people haven't even set out on the path of holiness yet.
"Another commenter claimed their spiritual work actually has effects on the world, but as the Orthodox know, spiritual delusion is a thing, and just because someone believes their spirituality is for real doesn't mean that it is. It is only through acts that one can confirm whether one is deluded or not."
It's not by acts that we know, people can do the right acts externally for selfish or egotistical reasons (worldy glory, the praise of others, societal status etc). Spiritual delusion actually typically comes from pridefully equating one's acts with a measure of holiness. The Bible talks about people being known by their fruits and that one can do good works with the wrong motivation and not out of sacrificial love. You also have to revist your definition of acts - prayer is also an act. Works are not just externally visible things happening on the street. The other key Orthodox belief which is important here is the necessity of obedience. If one has obedience, he is protected from delusion, even if his spiritual guide errs. This is ignored by moderns because they can't accept that they can be guided by anyone but themselves and they are therefore ripe for delusion.
"I don't think it's obvious Jesus instituted anything like monasticism, nor do I think any particular church is commensurate with Jesus)."
This is mental acrobatics and logically incoherent. Christ instituted the Church, which represents the starting point for everything that we know about Christ and how to live in a Christ-like manner. The New Testament came from the Church. If you don't accept monasticism because you don't accept the Church's authority, there's no basis upon which to accept the New Testament without being arbitrary. Once you reject the Church you have to reconcile yourself to the fact that you just have the Scriptures in a vacuum with no justification of why one should accept them and no guidance on interpreting them.
'Faith without works' is a line from St Paul, referring to a very specific situation in an early church in the middle east. It's not the basis of a whole theory, or shouldn't be. As for Muhammad being a 'greater authority' that the church of Christ .... er, no, sorry! There is no 'thorny question' there, especially for a Christian.
The Orthodox church, incidentally (and the Catholics) is quite clear about the benefits of monasticism. You can find out what they are if you go looking.
The line “faith without works is dead” comes from St. James 2:14-26:
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
I wouldn't try to minimize the 'faith without works' line by making it seem like it's so contextual as to be meaningless. As to Muhammad... Well, the church of Christ is not actually Christ, which is why there are all the divisions and strife, among other things. Unless you want to say the Orthodox are the only true church, but even there I've heard there is strife between the Russian Orthodox and the rest.
The spiritual development of the followers of any religion just doesn't equal that of someone who received a religion-sized revelation. Unless you think Muhammad was fake, but then, you previously said you would break bread with anyone, and that's tricky to do if you think these others are all profoundly deluded.
Which can sound like my conceit to be fair, except I don't think Christ was wrong or fake, it's really more about whether monasticism was Christ's intent or not.
Resorting to whatever spiritual development I have attained, I say action is the seal of authentic spirituality, because without action, one's spirituality is entirely within, and one's own mind is the realm of delusion. It is only by attempting to manifest the spirit that one finds out how much of the spirit is actually within.
I pretty much agree with all of this. Collapse - which is what we're living through - is a necessary and in a way cheerful challenge. We talked a lot at the weekend about apocalypse - revelation - performing the same function: revealing what is really there, which makes it impossible to go back. This is why I am so intrigued by the cave Christians, the early ascetics, the desert fathers etc. At another time of collapse, they stripped the essence of Christian traidtion right back, and built anew with no thought of building at all. Now it's our turn.
Down to the bone.
I was reading that the Desert Fathers were a sort of counter cultural protest against the growing marriage between Christianity and political power and it's institutionalization, a sort of last impulse of original Christianity before Christendom emerged. I like that perspective a lot. But now it's our turn, and a newly revitalized Christianity will similarly have to be a protest against institutionalized Christianity and a recovery of the original spirit of Christianity. And it's very much a cheerful task!
Absolutely. Anthony gave all his wealth away and fled to the tombs in response to Christianity's new comfortable status post-Constantine. Martyrdom had been vital to Christian life, and it was now mostly impossible. He decided to create a new route to it.
Creating a new route is very much where we need to be now, as the machine is making it ever harder to reject modernity and live a simple life.
It’s time to read St. Augustine’s City of God, the version edited by Hans Urs von Balthasar (it’s not as long as the Dods version). I know it’s on your reading list. At least Augustine didn’t have to deal with AI and the Machine, otherwise he would have written another 10 volumes.
~~We forget that modernity "emerged" from tradition, so people obviously were not satisfied.~~
Your B there doesn't necessarily follow from your A. Many moves away from tradition were neither chosen nor welcome.
Sure, but if tradition was perfect, there would have been no space for criticism to emerge, no discontent to mobilize.
Not sure anyone here is arguing that tradition is/was perfect, only that that it's valuable, an idea that the Enlightenment rejected.
Nothing is 'perfect.' Often the destruction of traditional cultures arises from greed, lust and vainglory. The example of enclosure and the consequent industrial revolution in England, which I've written about here, is one illustration of that. Tradition is wilfully destroyed for money and power. Those who resist this are the 'reactionary radicals' I have also written about.
I was down in Victoria BC staying with a friend for two weeks. My reason for the 12 hour drive was to see Martin Shaw deliver powerful stories to a myth hungry audience. It was glorious. I had so many thoughts after I left the venue. Many thoughts about the stories Martin shared, especially the one about what happens to the world when you bury the Feminine, the Divine Feminine. But also many thoughts from seeing the diverse crowd of people at the event and their response to these Sacred Stories. I’m going to have to jot down some of them at some point. On my travel home I was excited to listen to this episode of Unherd. I grabbed my coffee waited for a portion of the drive that settled into the lonely trek, away from Vancouver traffic, down the Gold Rush Trail. Twenty minutes later it was over! 😳 Haha. I actually said out loud, “That was far too short!”. ( I think I may have even screamed it) But upon relistening I was amazed at the amount of information you were able to pack in there Paul. It was eloquent, interesting, and right on the money! A real testimony to the years long journey you have been on, it came from the heart, not the head. I’ve decided if anyone has any questions about the Christian story and/or The Machine ( who are inextricably linked) I’ll be sending them this talk. Well done! Quite the accomplishment really! I will be watching for the Q and A with you and Mary and two hours sounds heavenly. Thank you, for being who God made you.
Thank you Shari. I like th idea of being listened to on the Gold Rush Trail. Seems apt!
I never thought of it that way but totally appropriate! 😂 By the way, Matthias Desmet’s latest Substack. https://open.substack.com/pub/mattiasdesmet/p/the-desire-for-technocracy-or-technecracy?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you for being one of the courageous prophets speaking against the darkness. I'm shocked (I don't know why) by how many people have invited AI into their lives already. People who say, "I recognize the danger, but..."
"I use it to write my business emails"
"I let my homeschooled kids use it for research"
"I ask it questions out of curiosity"
The Church has usually viewed technology as a neutral tool, so I'll be shocked if we receive guidance from any religious leaders telling us to completely reject AI.
Erica, I share your incomprehension about the nonchalance of at least some Christians toward AI. Everyone else I suppose I expect varying degrees of enthusiasm for AI from. The fact that people whom I know to be Christian ( and engineering/tech guys, at that ) have welcomed it into their lives shocks me.
Still looking pretty much in vain for some guidance on the AI thing from my Orthodox leaders. To be honest, when the AI geniuses seem to have little idea of its future, I'm guessing that my religious shepherds are either in denial or totally confused.
It's seemed to come out of nowhere, though it hasn't. But how much was it talked about two years ago? Suddenly, the nonterrestials have landed.
Boy. Isn't that the truth! I've watched a couple dozen, or so, interviews with these AI guys and I can just barely get my head around what it all means.
Another Substack author I read, Luke Burgis (Anti-Mimetic) brought the following video to my attention: https://youtu.be/jNT4Ypr4yg8
I too had been lamenting the seeming lack of awareness among Christians (Catholics in particular in my case) about the threats of AI, as the culmination of the Machine’s telos. Bishop Barron’s message is a start - I haven’t watched the series he’s reviewing but might do so. Stories - we need to tell good stories.
Thank you! So well stated, and so true.
One of my favorite takes on the serpent in the garden is CS Lewis’ Perelandra, it’s Lewis imagining what the whole dialogue was like, in a way. Fascinating!
Regarding Christendom, y’all might be interested in Doug Wilson’s new book, Mere Christendom, which he describes as an attempt to think through Christendom 2.0. Here’s a fun podcast with the Babylon Bee about it:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YUtNtKCLDvM
And in the self-promotion department, I think y’all might like this piece on how the religious worldview used to permeate our school system (like you say, it wasn’t “religion”, it was everyday life) and this has become so foreign to our thinking that even our most sensitive historians miss the point. McCullough’s mistake, or There is No Neutral:
https://gaty.substack.com/p/mcculloughs-mistake-and-ours
You mention Babel. As others have said, Pentecost is fast approaching, the day when all tongues spoke as one, the day the Lord reversed Babel! Think of it, only 120 Christians facing a world - a whole world! - that didn’t know Christ… and God, through the Holy Spirit, laid the foundations for all Christendom to rise. Pray indeed! Do not despair!
Good talk, and I appreciate the thoughtful comments in the thread. Themes that resonate with me: the need for humility. For awareness of that which is greater and beyond the human. The advice to pray, which is a way of saying that Western religion/spirituality needs to be imbued with daily practice.
Thank you, Paul – that is the heart of the matter, isn't it – what IS the heart of the matter? And the dust has not yet settled on that issue. At least as far as humankind is concerned. But in naming Christ Jesus you go right to the heart of it.