One Big Demonic Globalist Voice vs Many Small Truthful Voices

One of the most profound distinctions (so-called ‘polarities’) forced upon us by these times, is the stark choice between each person making his own inner-discernments about the truth of reality; or else a willing and willed embrace of what we know to be a world of lies and manipulations, emanating from the institutions of The Global Establishment.

Bruce Charlton, 3/8/2021.

I sometimes misunderstand Bruce, but he seems to be saying that we have two choices: submit to the big, ubiquitous, demonic voice of the corrupt world system, or discern truth inwardly. In my view, his words are correct but they miss the most important thing: Discovering the small truthful voices. We don’t have to discover truth all by ourselves. It’s not just me versus the world. It’s us versus the world.

Possibly Bruce regards it as an obvious given that we can encounter truth through the voices of others. Maybe the inner discernment he speaks of is nothing more than the act of choosing which voice to believe. (That is, after all, the key choice that any person makes.)  But in his current writings he emphasizes the untrustworthiness and wickedness of the current authorities and institutions, and the need for inner discernment. He doesn’t write much about the importance of the small truthful voices which can still be found in books and online.

Indeed, a few paragraphs later in the linked post, he writes:

Each of us [is] confronted by the stark choice of believing in our own, personal, individual and perhaps unique evaluations; or else yielding (by choice) to a world of lies and evil.

This can be nuanced, of course, but there’s no denying the general thrust: Each one of us is on his own.

Bruce emphasizes inner discernments as of first importance. I agree with him that inner discernments are based on intuition about first principles (intuition is how all first principles are known.) But to be accurate, intuitions must be confirmed, refined, and augmented by our further experiences plus ideas that others have honed and put into words. Intuition is a sense that something is true; a sense that is not based on a conscious process of analysis but is instead grasped immediately and grasped whole. But our sense of something may not be accurate. Intuition sometimes leads us astray. Intuition must be educated and tested. If it is true, it will pass the test.

And we must also have the written Word of God (the Bible) to tell us the most important truths that intuition cannot know.

When I was young my intuition told me something was wrong with the world system, and with myself. But it was just a vague sense; I didn’t know whether there really was something wrong with the world (and I am part of the world), or the world was OK and it was my fault for not getting with the program.  The voice of the Establishment just didn’t seem truthful. It was the words of others, which I first experienced mostly through reading their writings, which showed me the truths about first principles. These small truthful voices were hard to find amidst the uproar, and I discovered them through what seemed to be chance, but they confirmed the general accuracy of my unease. And they explained the world. If I had not found these small voices of wisdom, I would still be lost.

The voices of truth are in one sense easier to find than when I was young, because of the Internet. But they are becoming harder to find, as the campaigns of distraction, vilification and censorship are ramping up.

Despite persecution of the truth-tellers, the salvation that I gained is still available. Others can experience what I experienced by learning from the wise. We need to keep writing and talking about the truth.

12 thoughts on “One Big Demonic Globalist Voice vs Many Small Truthful Voices

  1. @Alan – I think you have understood what I intended!

    “to be accurate, intuitions must be confirmed, refined, and augmented by our further experiences plus ideas that others have honed and put into words”

    I agree. But each of these confirmatory further experiences must itself be discerned from the much more massive and dominant volume of “big, ubiquitous, demonic voices”.

    For example: the written Word of God (the Bible). Which translation? (Are all equally divinely-inspired – or only one, or some?). Which interpretation of which translation?

    And then – how do we read the Bible? Is every Book of Old and New Testament exactly equal in authority – every chapter, every verse? Do we read it as an overall argument, or two (Old and New)? etc. (In practice, every Bible reader makes assumptions about overall and relative authority – although few seem willing to identify these or acknowledge that these are assumptions.)

    In all these and other questions about The Bible, we will be faced by a plethora of ‘external authorities’ telling us what to believe; and most of these voices (and likely the most obvious and dominant voices) will be wrong – and some deliberately evil deceptions (e.g. the modern mainstream theology of the seminaries and universities). Other advice/ scholarship will be based on wholly secular assumptions – is that valid?

    My point is that we cannot escape from intuitive discernments. We can simplify matters if our discernment tells us that a particular church (or, more likely, a particular *part* of a particular church) is valid, and can be relied upon for external advice, and then simply followed/ obeyed. But the difference is merely in *fewer* acts of discernment upon which our practice is built – it does not remove the absolute need/fact of discernment – and discernment is personal.

    How then can error be avoided? It can’t – in an ultimate sense. We are finite beings, of limited ability, and sinners.

    But motivation is everything. Because God is the creator (continually creating this world), and because he loves us as individuals and wants our salvation, and because we are (already) Sons of God (each have the divine in us, to an extent); we can be sure that if our *motivation* is genuine (love of God), then we will be enabled (later if not sooner) to know what is necessary, to the degree it is necessary.

    If our motivation is sincere, God will do the necessary rest.

  2. “My point is that we cannot escape from intuitive discernments.”

    Agreed. My point was partly that a reader could draw the conclusion that you are implying we are on our own in a deeper sense. You seemed to be denying (by omission rather than directly) that wisdom can be found from listening to others. But I observed that that may not be your intent.

    My larger purpose was to affirm the centrality of intuition, and also that it must be tested against other voices. “…intuition is how all first principles are known.” I was not so much disagreeing with you as riffing on a theme of yours.

    We are largely in agreement, but we have different emphases. You emphasize the necessity of inner choice (and I did say that inner choice is the key choice that any person makes), and I emphasize the truth that can be found from the voices of others.

    With regard to your series of questions about how we can interpret the voices, I think you exaggerate the difficulty of deciding how to choose. My experience is that I found clear criteria for choosing as I explored the issues, so that my choices felt more like a scientist discovering, and less like a pure act of the will.

    But the will is always involved. We must choose inwardly, as you keep saying.

  3. “we can be sure that if our *motivation* is genuine (love of God), then we will be enabled (later if not sooner) to know what is necessary, to the degree it is necessary.”

    As a soteriologically-Calvinistic Protestant, I interpret man’s search differently, but I would affirm that in the mundane world, those who actually possess a sincere and humble desire for truth, and if they have what the mundane world sees as good luck, it is likely they will find wisdom.

  4. @Alan – “a reader could draw the conclusion that you are implying we are on our own in a deeper sense”

    I suppose I was saying that this may be the situation for many people. I have a small group of like minded people with whom I can interact on serious Christian matters – but I can easily imagine having nobody at all that I both respected and trusted; then I would indeed be ‘on my own’… as a Christian.

    So yes – we need to be able to be on our own in the deepest of senses. Of course we would seek like-minded spirits in real life, online and in books – but they may not be found, and they may not relieve the sense of ultimate (this world) isolation.

    (Of course, in an ultimate-ultimate – spiritual – sense we are never alone!)

    This is something ‘new’ that may need to be accepted now, whereas it was probably rare through most of history – since even in conditions of persecution (and at great risk) past Christians were groupish in ways that have fallen apart very completely over the past year (after decades of weakening).

  5. “Do you know that it is not more than a thousand years ago since the metaphysicians consented to relieve the people of the singular fancy that there existed but two possible roads for the attainment of Truth! Believe it if you can! It appears that long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish philosopher (or Hindoo possibly) called Aries Tottle. This person introduced, or at all events propagated what was termed the deductive or a priori mode of investigation. He started with what he maintained to be axioms or ‘self-evident truths,’ and thence proceeded “logically” to results. His greatest disciples were one Neuclid, and one Cant. Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme until advent of one Hog, surnamed the ‘Ettrick Shepherd,’ who preached an entirely different system, which he called the a posteriori or inductive. His plan referred altogether to Sensation. He proceeded by observing, analyzing, and classifying facts-instantiae naturae, as they were affectedly called — into general laws. Aries Tottle’s mode, in a word, was based on noumena; Hog’s on phenomena. Well, so great was the admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first introduction, Aries Tottle fell into disrepute; but finally he recovered ground and was permitted to divide the realm of Truth with his more modern rival. The savans now maintained the Aristotelian and Baconian roads were the sole possible avenues to knowledge. ‘Baconian,’ you must know, was an adjective invented as equivalent to Hog-ian and more euphonious and dignified.”

    E. A. Poe, “Mellonta Tauta” (1848) — A Letter from 2848

    Poe was an “intuition” guy. He admired Kepler over the Ram and the Hog.

    The Orthosphere has been hit by a large bolt on Synchronicity.

  6. On a parallel note, Dr. Charlton should be one of those “small-voice” “truth-tellers” and given his track record, this is exactly what he strives to be. And so his “truth-telling” specializes in an intuitive discernment of God and the Truth of Christ present in the material world. Yet, this does not at all intuitively explain “his” metaphysical origin. It only speaks to his unique participation in God’s Creation and not to “his” experience in originating from outside (P)erfection.

  7. Look at people around you. How many have shut off all thinking by bombarding themselves with non-stop music? You can’t escape the noise anywhere, it seems. Airports just blare CNN on TV screens. It’s almost unsettling to be in a quiet airport outside the US.

    If you just shut all this noise off you are ahead of the game. You can hear yourself think, and hear truthful voices talking.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.