The Different Levels of Thinking & Thinkers

In Undergrad, we learned there were 4 levels of worldview thinking and thinkers.

1.) Original Thinkers — These types show up once every two or three generations. Though honestly, Solomon said a millennium ago that there was nothing new under the sun. Examples might be Newton, Ptolemy, Calvin, Augustine, J. Edwards, etc.

2.) Sociological Applicators — These are the synthesizers and they likewise are geniuses. These chaps take from the geniuses and synthesize so that new plausible worldview paradigms arise.

Men like Erasmus, Herbert Spencer, Neil Postmen, Kuyper, Bavinck, Karl Popper, M. Polyani, R. L. Dabney, R. J. Rushdoony etc. You and I probably won’t meet one of these in our lifetime.

3.) Eclectic — These are those who randomly take from different thought systems as your lunch diner takes from the noon buffet. Often they have deep contradictions embedded in their thinking. These are most college professors, shrinks, social workers, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians etc. They make up the professional white-collar class. These are dull people. This doesn’t mean all in these white-collar categories are Eclectic but many are.  Think Barak Obama, George Bush, Donald Trump, Fauci, Gates, Sean Michael Lucas, J. Ligon Duncan, Kevin DeYoung, Joel McDurmon, Greg Johnson, etc.

4.) Conglomerate — They catch their worldview like you catch a common cold. They are just mouthpieces for the floating zeitgeist as found in media and pop culture. This represents 90% plus of the world we live in today. This is your cousins, your co-workers, your average pew sitter, and the average minister standing up in front of the average pew sitter.

After I first wrote this a friend from Australia offered a slight correction that I thought was quite good.

________

 
 
The 2  you have is a rare genius while the 3 you have is a dullard. We

need something between 2 and 3.
 
 
 
Suggested – 3. Deep Reader. Produces nothing new, nor a master of synthesis, but strives for consistency and relentlessly follows – learns without new production nor synthesis. Guards and transmits systems that others have invented and refined. Examples are Gary North, N. T. Wright,  Daniel Ritchie,  Joel Beeke,  Shelby Foote, Winston Churchill, Thomas Paine, etc.
 
 
1. totally new worldview generator
2. refines and systematizes worldview
3. comprehends and reiterates worldview
4. a mess of different world views and contradictions often loudly proclaimed
5. Hoi Polloi Eloi… Rank & File 
 
 

Snapshot Contradictions of Different Religions

Polytheism — The religion that can’t see the contradiction in applying the word “God” to more than one being.

Talmudism — The religion which can’t see contradiction unless it can see contradiction until it can’t see contradiction while seeing no contradiction in the contradiction of contradiction according to various Rabbis and books.
Neo-Orthodoxy (Barthianism) — The religion which can’t see the contradiction in insisting that which is subjective can be made into the Objective by an act of the will of the subjective.
Humanism — The religion which can’t see the contradiction in denying God while presupposing the self as the ultimate starting point and authority.
Islam — The religion which can’t see the contradiction in knowing the will of a god who is so transcendent that nobody can possibly know him.
Buddhism — The religion which can’t see the contradiction that finds their chief desire to be the loss of all desire.


Arminianism — The religion which can’t see the contradiction of having a God who is sovereign enough to not be sovereign.

R2K — The religions which can’t see the contradiction that God’s left-hand rule is in direct contradiction to His right-hand rule.

Reformed Baptists — The religion that can’t see that whatever you are requiring of an adult to bring for Baptism that a baby can’t bring is the point where you no longer can talk about being Reformed.

The Shape of Water — A Review

“The Shape of Water,” just won the Academy Award for best film of the year. Having viewed the film last night I found just one more Cultural Marxist attack on the norms and values of the Christendom norms that normed Western civilization in favor of the putative superiority of the alien, the stranger, and the other.

The storyline introduces us to a “wild creature that can’t be anything else.” The film informs us that the wild creature comes from the third world Amazon and was abducted from his previous god-like existence by the evil white man and was brought by force and ill-treatment in order to possibly advance science and to beat the Russians to the moon. Of course, the wild creature while wild is cast as morally superior to his captors, even if he does eat a housecat along the way.

We find in the narrative thus that the white man as the protagonist as embodied in evil white General, the bumbling white scientist, and the evil white project head. The only slightly favorable white straight male character is the Communist Russian scientist spy who works to help save the wild creature. Hence the film reinforces our modern Cultural Marxist narrative of the stupid and evil white man who oppresses everything he lays his hands on.

White women only fare slightly better. Except for the lead, which we will return to later, the three white women who have minuscule roles are cast in traditional female roles and are subtly mocked in the film. The film gives us the white wife of the chief villain who is mocked as the traditional white stay at home Mother of two who is subservient to her husband and whose only ability is the sex she provides for her husband and her ability to be at home with the children. In such a way patriarchy is also mocked in the film. A second bit white female role is of the secretary at work who likewise is portraying a traditional white female role of “our girl Friday.” The third bit white female role lead is that of a bitchy co-worker who is always complaining or casting demeaning insults at the lead mute female. There are the three white women bit-roles we are given in the film. White traditional women like white men take it on the chin in this Cultural Marxist film.

The leading lady of the film is a white female who while not beautiful is comely. She is cast as a white woman who is missing something (her voice) that only the wild creature from an exotic land can finally cure.  The supporting male role is filled by a middle-aged sodomite who aids the female lead in rescuing the wild creature from the grip of the evil white men. The supporting female role is played by a black female who is forever telling us about the deficiencies of her husband. Except for the wild creature, the Communist scientist spy, and the sodomite, males in the film are bumbling, or evil beings. More Cultural Marxist fare; straight non-Communist white men are evil while perverted wild males from other lands or sodomites or Communists are good.

I’m convinced the leading white lady is supposed to represent the every day western white woman who can only find her voice by throwing themselves sexually at the wild thing from an exotic land who heals her of her lost voice while imparting to her immortal life as living in his environment.  White women and poor misunderstood wild males from exotic lands can only save one another as they conspire to overcome the wicked white man by copulating. So, we have the Cultural Marxist film selling the idea that there is something lacking in comely white women that only the wild thing can heal while at the same time wild exotic things from other lands can only be rescued by white women. I would contend that this is an obvious push for White women to copulate with that which is wild and untamed (illegal or legal immigrants from other countries). Only then can white women find that which is lacking and be healed and only then can wild things from exotic lands find salvation.

It is not even subtle. All you European and American women the way to find your voice is by copulating with wild males from exotic countries who are totally other. The inter-species relationship in the film stands as a metaphor for white women who have no voice giving themselves to the wild things from exotic lands and so finding what is lacking in themselves and their whiteness. Only by the White women working in concert with minority women, and homosexual man can evil white men be defeated. In the film, the wild thing from an exotic land is always morally better, restorative and redemptive.  And all this cast as a romantic love story.

A few other ancillary observations regarding the film,

1.) The white male lead, who is cast as a detestable and hateable character makes a sexual advance on the leading white female. Of course, such an advance is crude, and as coming in the context of the white male lead being already married to a wife which the film shows filling her husband’s bedroom needs, what is being communicated is the hypocrisy of the patriarchal family. The film’s clear intent is to communicate to white women that wild things from exotic lands are superior to white men and that white men should be surrendered for wild things from exotic lands.

2.) The film uses the Christian Scriptures accounts of Samson and Ruth. The evil white man in the film casts himself as Samson bringing down the plot of the sodomite, Communist scientist spy, black female co-worker, and the mute white girl to release the wild thing from an exotic land. The film places the apartment of the mute girl over a theatre that is playing the film “Ruth.” Ruth, you will recall is the bible story of the woman who is thought to have left her Moabite people in order to be a foremother of the Messiah.

3.) This film is basically the film version cast as a Romantic love story of Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality.” The patriarchal family in both the book and the film is cast as twisted and evil and the origin of much of what is wrong with Western civilization. To be trapped in this patriarchal family culture is to be mentally ill and so villainous.

4.) There may be even in the film an attempt to normalize bestiality as a sexual norm though I am convinced that the creature from the black lagoon is a stand-in not for sex with animals but as a stand-in for sex with wild things from exotic lands.

The film is an ideological Cultural Marxist attack on Christianity, White Males, patriarchy, Western Civilization, the whole idea of distinct nations, and normative sexuality cast as a Romance. In other words, typical Hollywood fare.

 

 

 

Christian History and its Consistent Stance on Hierarchy and Social Inequality as being Biblical

Over here,

Quotes on Social Inequality from the Protestant Tradition

There is a list of quotes that demonstrate that Christianity had never taught the Cultural Marxist doctrine of social equality. I am going to take a quote or two or three every day from this site and post the quote here. The idea of egalitarianism needs to be beaten, bruised and bloodied until it dies a violent death. If the idea of social equality (modern egalitarianism) is not killed it will kill the Church and us as a people.

Elsewhere, I have posted a slew of quotes that demonstrate that Christians throughout history have believed in distinctions between peoples and nations.

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

Also, elsewhere I have posted several times where I have provided quotes that reveal that it is the Marxists and Cultural Marxists who have always desired social equality and social order egalitarianism.

These quotes I am providing in the next few days would provide a more general category under which the quotes I have provided earlier would exist as a subpoint under the general category.

Augustine (354 – 430)

Peace between man and man is well-ordered concord. Domestic peace is the well-ordered concord between those of the family who rule and those who obey. Civil peace is a similar concord among the citizens. The peace of the celestial city is the perfectly ordered and harmonious enjoyment of God, and of one another in God. The peace of all things is the tranquility of order. Order is the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.  (City of God xix.13)

Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274):

Under the question “Whether in the state of innocence man would have been master over man?,” he writes (Summa Theologica 1.96.4):

But a man is the master of a free subject, by directing him either towards his proper welfare, or to the common good. Such a kind of mastership would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man, for two reasons.

First, because man is naturally a social being, and so in the state of innocence he would have led a social life. Now a social life cannot exist among a number of people unless under the presidency of one to look after the common good; for many, as such, seek many things, whereas one attends only to one. Wherefore the Philosopher says, in the beginning of the Politics, that wherever many things are directed to one, we shall always find one at the head directing them.

Secondly, if one man surpassed another in knowledge and virtue, this would not have been fitting unless these gifts conduced to the benefit of others, according to 1 Peter 4:10, “As every man hath received grace, ministering the same one to another.” Wherefore Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 14): “Just men command not by the love of domineering, but by the service of counsel”: and (De Civ. Dei xix, 15): “The natural order of things requires this; and thus did God make man.”

For the question, “Whether men were equal in the state of innocence?” he writes:

Equality is the cause of equality in mutual love. Yet between those who are unequal there can be a greater love than between equals; although there be not an equal response: for a father naturally loves his son more than a brother loves his brother; although the son does not love his father as much as he is loved by him.

The cause of inequality could be on the part of God; not indeed that He would punish some and reward others, but that He would exalt some above others; so that the beauty of order would the more shine forth among men. Inequality might also arise on the part of nature as above described, without any defect of nature.

A properly ordered hierarchical social order has greater beauty than a collection of equals. This is consistent with Aquinas’s view that “divine goodness” is communicated “more perfectly” by “diverse things” (Summa Contra Gentiles , III, 97)

God, through His providence, orders all things to divine goodness as to an end; not however in such a manner that His goodness increases through those things which come to be, but so that a likeness of His goodness is imprinted in things insofar as it is possible, for indeed it is necessary that every created substance fall short of divine goodness, so that in order for divine goodness to be communicated to things more perfectly, it was necessary for there to be diversity in things, so that what is not able to be perfectly represented by some one [thing] is represented in a more perfect manner through diverse things in diverse ways.

Chain of Being Thinking and Implications

“A second essential point with respect to ancient philosophy: for ancient philosophy, being is one and continuous. Now, what does this mean? As Christians, as believers in the scriptures, we declare that God is uncreated being. He alone is God. Men are not Gods, men are not divine, we don’t have a spark of divinity in us, we are creatures. So that there are two kinds of being in the universe. The uncreated being, God, and the whole word of created being, man and all the creatures, the entire universe. This means, therefore, there is a vast gap between God and the universe, and the universe, nor any part of it, can ever be termed divine. But in ancient philosophy, there was only one continuous world of beings, so that the Gods, the men, all shared in this divinity.

Now some people were more godlike than others, the heroes were ones who were at least half-Gods. The rulers or emperors very often became completely God. Everyone had a little bit of God in them and it was just a case of developing that in them. So salvation meant becoming more and more a God, whereas for us salvation is accepting the redemptive work of God by faith.

Now, the background of this idea of one continuous being was that being arose out of chaos, and here you have the whole religion of revolution and that it is working its way up. And since it is evolving, and the idea of evolution is the hallmark of paganism, there was no idea of creation in paganism, whatever they may try to tell you. The way for this evolution to proceed is through chaos. It has to have chaos occasionally in order to step upward. And so this takes us to the religion of evolution.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Lecture — The Early Thinkers from Plato to Augustine Q&A-Delivered 1969

These three paragraphs explain the modern West for those with ears to hear. Some observations.

1.) If all being is continuous then all being participates in and is reflective of God.  Any distinctions that exist, exist only because some realities have more being in them than other realities. The more the being the higher one is on the scale of hierarchy. This kind of social order was reflected in the Egyptian system of Mahat. Mahat had reference to the Universal mind. Pharaoh was understood to have the greatest participation of the Universal mind. From Pharaoh on down, everyone possessed less of the Universal mind.  If one possessed less of the universal mind one was the slave of the one who possessed more of the universal mind. Mahat gave a slave order where everyone was the slave of the one above them who had more being.

2.) The West has put a twist on this continuous being thinking by adding egalitarianism to continuous being. If all being is continuous (Chain of being) and if that thinking is going to be combined with egalitarianism then no being is superior or inferior to any other being and as no being is superior or inferior to any other being then no distinctions that mark superiority or inferiority can be allowed to exist. Hence egalitarianism, as combined with the chain of being thinking (called Oneism by Dr. Peter Jones), results in the certitude that no objection can be raised against Transgenderism, sodomy, New World Order Babelism, multiculturalism, multiracialism, multi-faithism or Open borders because all share in divinity and all are equal. Indeed in this system of continuous thinking as combined with egalitarianism any distinction made in terms of “superior” (better) vs. “inferior” (worse) is the greatest crime imaginable. (With the exception that egalitarianism is superior to inferior notions of Biblical hierarchy.)

3.) Wherever you find the doctrine of the chain of being (continuous being) there you find the religion of chaos.  Chain of Being thinking does not allow a creator God who has distinct unshared being and who is responsible for bringing order out of Chaos so Being and order must arise out of chaos. Chaos gives birth to order and being.  As such, those social orders who embrace continuous being (and Evolutionary thinking is the very nard of chain of being thinking), also embrace the religion of revolution. This religion insists that in order for a utopian order to come to pass that can only happen by returning to chaos that order may be birthed. You find this kind of thinking exemplified in celebrations of Mardi Gras, ancient rites of bacchanalia, and of course the post-Endarkenment blood-drenched Revolutions (1789 — French / 1848 — Europe / 1861 — America / 1914 — Europe / 1918 — Bolshevik / 1948 — China etc.).  This thinking teaches that destruction has the capacity to bring Utopia.  Order out of Chaos reflects a dialectical thinking of one step back in order to gain two steps forward.

4.) Of course, “chain of being” thinking disallows the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible has being that is unique and distinct from the creature. (In Christian theology this is called the Creator-creature distinction.) In “chain of being” thinking this Creator God must be eliminated.  Of course, when the God of the Bible is eliminated God pops up elsewhere. For “chain of being” thinking the god which has distinct being from all else (even though lip service is given that no distinct being exists) is the State. The State becomes that reality which has the most being and so must be obeyed. The new motto for “chain of being” thinking is “in the state we live and move and have our being.”

5.) Since all godhead must have unity of being the State as the god of the Chain of being must work in order to ensure uniformity in the social order. The motto becomes, “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” If there is continuity of being and if the State is the Archimedean point of all being then all individuality in the State must be sunk in the god-State. This also becomes a factor in pushing all things towards egalitarianism.  The State becomes Queen Bee and all in the hive are drones serving the Queen bee.

Individuality is lost. Distinction is lost. Liberty is lost.