Secular Intolerance

[Belinda]

Nick_A wrote:

They are also scientific. A person who is open to understand Pythagoras’ law of octaves for example will understand a great deal of universal creation.

I am still confused and impressed by Pythagoras's law of octaves, and the spirals of shells and so on. The harmony between apparent reality and sacred mathematics is awesome.

I recommend books by Gordon Strachan who taught the course that I attended. A decent good man incidentally.

http://www.newinvisiblecollege.com/char ... -strachan/

[Nick_A]

Nick_A wrote:

They are also scientific. A person who is open to understand Pythagoras’ law of octaves for example will understand a great deal of universal creation.

I am still confused and impressed by Pythagoras's law of octaves, and the spirals of shells and so on. The harmony between apparent reality and sacred mathematics is awesome.

I recommend books by Gordon Strachan who taught the course that I attended. A decent good man incidentally.

http://www.newinvisiblecollege.com/char ... -strachan/

Thanks for the link. I see the site is under construction and am looking forward to its completion. If you are open to these kinds of ideas, consider yourself fortunate in this day and age. The modern secular mind only considers duality: affirm/deny, plus,minus, good/bad. It doesn't respect the intuitive mind which the contradictions within dulaism can open one to. Unfortuntely the secular mind equates the intuitive mind with fantasy so says just create your own reality. I found this on a Spinoza site

http://home.earthlink.net/~tneff/

Spinoza expressed his resolve to: "...inquire whether there might be some real good having power to communicate itself, which would affect the mind singly, to the exclusion of all else; whether, in fact, there might be anything of which the discovery and attainment would enable me to enjoy continuous, supreme, and unending happiness." He found, for himself, that the "chief good" is "knowledge of the union existing between the mind and the whole of nature."

The true study of Spinoza's ideas involves the study of our own particular nature, seeking to clarify the confusions and passive emotions brought about through our own imagination and, by using Reason and Intuition, to direct our mind toward union with our Eternal Essential Being.

Secular intolerance has the effect of destroying the natural connection between dual reason and the intuitive mind and in that sense kills eros in the young.

As you know I've been referring to levels of reality which seems absurd to the secular mind. But consider it from Hermetic principles:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/kyb/kyb04.htm

2. The Principle of Correspondence

"As above, so below; as below, so above."--The Kybalion.

This Principle embodies the truth that there is always a Correspondence between the laws and phenomena of the various planes of Being and Life. The old Hermetic axiom ran in these words: "As above, so below; as below, so above." And the grasping of this Principle gives one the means of solving many a dark paradox, and hidden secret of Nature. There are planes beyond our knowing, but when we apply the Principle of Correspondence to them we are able to understand much that would otherwise be unknowable to us. This Principle is of universal application and manifestation, on the various planes of the material, mental, and spiritual universe--it is an Universal Law. The ancient Hermetists considered this Principle as one of the most important mental instruments by which man was able to pry aside the obstacles which hid from view the Unknown. Its use even tore aside the Veil of Isis to the extent that a glimpse of the face of the goddess might be caught. Just as a knowledge of the Principles of Geometry enables man to measure distant suns and their movements, while seated in his observatory, so a knowledge of the Principle of Correspondence enables Man to reason intelligently from the Known to the Unknown. Studying the monad, he understands the archangel.

The universe is structured on levels of reality based on vibratory relationships. Man is a mini universe and our potential for conscious evolution is based on this correspondence. I'm not suggesting teaching a course on these ideas to students at random. But those whose minds are beginning to open should be made aware of the legit sources of esoteric ideas which invite opening to the intuitive understanding of above and below as opposed to their secular devolution.

[davidm]

The universe is structured on levels of reality based on vibratory relationships.

This means nothing, as stated. Can you explain it?

Oh, I know, it's esoteric, and only the finest minds can grasp it! Therefore it is beyond explanation! Just asking for an explanation proves what a retrograde schlub I am!

[Belinda]

I'd not say the finest minds. I'd say childlike or playful minds. If your awareness is focused you may not get the sensation, and this is true of dowsing.

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

The Bible: a book which either reads you or is worthless." Chazal

You won't let it read you so it cannot benefit you

You continue to move further and further away from a defense of you reading of the text.

Do you have an actual reference to this quote? The Viking Book of Aphorisms has US not YOU. If we search your version we find you repeating it over and over again on various websites going back over ten years. Chazal is an acronym for the Rabbinical sages but one site I found credited the quote (with us not your version) to “De Chazal” without a first name.

The Rabbinic literature is often described as dialectical - “Rabbi A says X but Rabbi B says Y” and “here in the Torah we find this yet there it says that”. So, if knowingly or (probably) not your appeal to this statement shows just how out of your depth you are.

If you are referring to something said by someone named Chazal then who is Chazal?

One might also point to the many statements that the mark of all great literature is that it reads you.

As to the difference between you and us, it is the difference between between the reading of an individual and the reading of human beings. So, you might claim that since the Bible reads you what it says is unique to you, but if the Bible reads us then what it says is true of all of us. In that case, and in line with your own professed universalism, what you claim the Bible is telling us is something that you should be able to show in what it says rather than pointing everywhere but to what it says, and, that it should be evident even if, as you claim, I won’t let it read me. Of course, you could resort to your fall back position that no one but the select few are able to see what the rest of us can't. And, as we go round in circles, you may demure, denying that you are not yet one of special few (snowflakes?), but in that case, once again, you do not really know what you are talking about because you cannot see from that vantage point.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A:

The Bible: a book which either reads you or is worthless." Chazal

You won't let it read you so it cannot benefit you

You continue to move further and further away from a defense of you reading of the text.

Do you have an actual reference to this quote? The Viking Book of Aphorisms has US not YOU. If we search your version we find you repeating it over and over again on various websites going back over ten years. Chazal is an acronym for the Rabbinical sages but one site I found credited the quote (with us not your version) to “De Chazal” without a first name.

The Rabbinic literature is often described as dialectical - “Rabbi A says X but Rabbi B says Y” and “here in the Torah we find this yet there it says that”. So, if knowingly or (probably) not your appeal to this statement shows just how out of your depth you are.

If you are referring to something said by someone named Chazal then who is Chazal?

One might also point to the many statements that the mark of all great literature is that it reads you.

As to the difference between you and us, it is the difference between between the reading of an individual and the reading of human beings. So, you might claim that since the Bible reads you what it says is unique to you, but if the Bible reads us then what it says is true of all of us. In that case, and in line with your own professed universalism, what you claim the Bible is telling us is something that you should be able to show in what it says rather than pointing everywhere but to what it says, and, that it should be evident even if, as you claim, I won’t let it read me. Of course, you could resort to your fall back position that no one but the select few are able to see what the rest of us can't. And, as we go round in circles, you may demure, denying that you are not yet one of special few (snowflakes?), but in that case, once again, you do not really know what you are talking about because you cannot see from that vantage point.

You are right. A friend sent me that quote years back and typed you instead of us. I checked in my viking book of Aphorisms and it is US. But regardless if the word is us or you the meaning is the same. A close reading of the Bible exposes all our emotions as we react to it. As we contemplate these inner meanings we are seen. Consciously contemplating the Bible exposes what we are. In that way it reads us. If it doesn't do that it doesn't serve its esoteric awakening purpose.

Of course, you could resort to your fall back position that no one but the select few are able to see what the rest of us can't.

It isn't that people can't They just deny themselves the opportunity by remaining enchanted with the shadows on the wall.

Matthew 13: 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17 For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

I believe that some people are just closed but most have the potential for seeing with new eyes and hearing with new ears. The Great Beast will do what it can to eliminate this potential since it denies its supremacy. It is obvious. How can a person living with perpetual denial be expected to see with new eyes and hear with new ears? Emotional denial prevents it

[Nick_A]

The universe is structured on levels of reality based on vibratory relationships.

This means nothing, as stated. Can you explain it?

Oh, I know, it's esoteric, and only the finest minds can grasp it! Therefore it is beyond explanation! Just asking for an explanation proves what a retrograde schlub I am!

Mika posted posted "A Conscious Universe" from the first chapter of Jacob Needleman’s book "A Sense of the Cosmos."

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html
“A Conscious Universe." This is what levels of reality refer to. This book wasn’t written for those who like to argue and condemn. It is written for those whose minds are beginning to open with a need for higher understanding. It is absurd for those limiting themselves to one level of reality. But for universalists, a conscious universe as a "ladder or hierarchy of intentions" makes perfect sense

[Greta]

The universe is structured on levels of reality based on vibratory relationships.

This means nothing, as stated. Can you explain it?

Oh, I know, it's esoteric, and only the finest minds can grasp it! Therefore it is beyond explanation! Just asking for an explanation proves what a retrograde schlub I am!

Mika posted posted "A Conscious Universe" from the first chapter of Jacob Needleman’s book "A Sense of the Cosmos."

http://www.tree-of-souls.com/spirituali ... leman.html
“A Conscious Universe." This is what levels of reality refer to. This book wasn’t written for those who like to argue and condemn. It is written for those whose minds are beginning to open with a need for higher understanding. It is absurd for those limiting themselves to one level of reality. But for universalists, a conscious universe as a "ladder or hierarchy of intentions" makes perfect sense

Then again, a deceased former forum member and staunch atheist, Obvious Leo, used to talk about the fractal levels of reality almost daily. Needleman's commentary on the perceptions of the ancients accord closely with the idea of reality being a series of approximately repeating fractals or, as the ancients sensibly noted, "As above, so below".

You don't need to be a person to fulfill certain roles. There are some common relative dynamics and interaction of entities at every scale - subatomic, molecular, microbial, multicellular, societal, ecosystem, planetary, galactic and so on. The same dynamics, over and over, with the same players - large and dominating, small and controlled, conduits, fringe inhabitants, nulls and so forth. Not wildly unlike Jung's types.

This is not mystical information, just speculated observations about how things seem to work. Yes, many hard-headed science fans dismiss such speculations out of hand. Then again, so do many theists, who see only two levels - them and The Big Kahuna. While I love science, I am also keen on poetic and metaphorical relations between things, but many science people consider this to be egoistic wankery by neophytes. So be it :)

Still, I agree with hard rationalists at least in that we should proceed here with caution; the confidence of the ancients was largely driven by their not being aware of their knowledge gaps. Importantly, just because something is in a higher sphere does not mean it is more developed. New entities in higher spheres will lack the connectivity of mature entities in smaller spheres. So a newborn human infant is less capable than an adult insect and a new society less wise than a mature individual.

Rather than size, balance appears to be pivotal. The domains of the very large and very small seem to be ever less connected and sentient. The Sun, the Earth, animal scales - all middling scales. Again, this pertains to connectivity. Too small, and the structures are not stable. Too large, and the various parts of a structure cannot communicate with each other - and the very essence of consciousness is interconnectivity.

One can hardly claim that science diminishes humans, unless considered through the narrow lenses of size and energy. Science tells us that we humans appear to be the very most densely complex and sentient things for trillions of kilometres at this stage.

Still, let's stay open. Maybe there's something weird going on with other dimensions? Nobody understands how quantum entanglement works, in which, like theoretical wormholes and space's expansion, information can travel at faster than the speed of light. The information in this instance apparently bypasses our familiar dimensions, connecting directly by concept rather than space and time. This also happens in our dreams and it is basically how the mind works generally, where abstracted connections are made without need for movement through space. This could be an interesting space to watch, despite a lot of new age guesswork being presented as fact (ahem).

I go on at length in the hope you can appreciate that non-theists can be extremely interested all in this stuff - we are not robot people who blindly just follow what experts say. You would say the same thing - that you are not a cookie-cutter theist either. I would rather you reply to the content of this post rather than the "politics".

The bottom line is that we are each small, sentient fluctuations of reality trying to make sense of their surroundings and conveying those impressions to other (hopefully) sentient fluctuations. It's reality gradually making sense of itself like a baby, but piecing together its understanding one individual at a time, with many contrary perceptions cancelling each other out. This competitive shaping is at all levels of reality, from the interaction of matter and antimatter at the start of the universe to the competition of ideas that shapes societies. That's what's happening on the forum - fluctuations in the fabric of reality comparing notes about what this reality malarkey we have been so unceremoniously thrust into is about.

[fooloso4]

Nick_A:

But regardless if the word is us or you the meaning is the same.

Whether the meaning is the same or different depends on the claims you might make about how you are read and how others are read who are not so special and how secularists are read.

I take your silence on Chazal to mean you do not know who or what it being quoted. It makes a difference because the source may reveal more about how we are to read in order to be read. For example, there may be a warning against imposing your opinions on the text or against making claims that are not supported by the text. If Chazal refers to the Rabbis and their hermeneutic tradition (which is quite different than Hermeticism), then your interpretation might be used as an example of how not to read.

A close reading of the Bible exposes all our emotions as we react to it.

Well, that’s very nice but you have done everything you can to avoid a close reading of the passage you keep running away from, pointing instead to a variety of other things.

As we contemplate these inner meanings we are seen.

The problem once again is that you are imposing what you claim to be the inner meaning on the text. Others can see that you are doing this but you cannot see yourself or what you are doing. Instead you see only the image you have created that consists of a hodge podge of slogans.

If it doesn't do that it doesn't serve its esoteric awakening purpose.

And so you don’t. You lull yourself to sleep by the sound of your incessant self serving chatter. You are not awakening, you are dreaming that you are waking. You look at the Bible in the same way you look at everything else, through the lens of your own beliefs and opinions. And so, all you see are your own beliefs and opinions.

It isn't that people can't They just deny themselves the opportunity by remaining enchanted with the shadows on the wall.

The irony is that this is exactly what you are doing. It is just that you fail to see that what you are looking at are still images on the wall of a cave of your own making. Part of the reason you fail to see this is that you wrongly assume that if you reject whatever it is you think the Great Beast claims then you are no longer under the influence of shadows; but substituting images for images is just to be led by different images created by different opinion-makers.

[Lacewing]

As we contemplate these inner meanings we are seen.

The problem once again is that you are imposing what you claim to be the inner meaning on the text. Others can see that you are doing this but you cannot see yourself or what you are doing. Instead you see only the image you have created that consists of a hodge podge of slogans.

If it doesn't do that it doesn't serve its esoteric awakening purpose.

And so you don’t. You lull yourself to sleep by the sound of your incessant self serving chatter. You are not awakening, you are dreaming that you are waking. You look at the Bible in the same way you look at everything else, through the lens of your own beliefs and opinions. And so, all you see are your own beliefs and opinions.

It isn't that people can't They just deny themselves the opportunity by remaining enchanted with the shadows on the wall.

The irony is that this is exactly what you are doing. It is just that you fail to see that what you are looking at are still images on the wall of a cave of your own making. Part of the reason you fail to see this is that you wrongly assume that if you reject whatever it is you think the Great Beast claims then you are no longer under the influence of shadows; but substituting images for images is just to be led by different images created by different opinion-makers.

You've described this so well, fooloso4. I've been thinking about the way that people seem able to so effectively turn off parts of their awareness... even when there is so much being revealed to them that would seem inescapable! The power/ability of the human to protect itself from potentially challenging or overwhelming revelations that threaten its ego or ideas of self and world, is astounding. Kind of tragic too... as the more awareness we turn off, the more stunted and mad we are within our own controlled creations. Strange world that stands people side-by-side, and yet they can't see the same things.

[Belinda]

This is a comment on that thing Nick said about what someone called Chazal said about The Bible reading the reader.

This is true of all worthwhile literature especially novels and poetry. An accomplished reader reads as if the text is applicable to theirself and true to life as they know it or can come to know it.

It's not the only mark of good literature. Other marks are layers of meaning , which Nick and others have pretty well established is true of The Bible. It contains esoteric meanings.Not every worthy text contains esoteric meanings of course. 'Esoteric' is a word commonly used in place of 'Hermetic' or 'Renaissance symbolist'.

However Nick should steer clear of any apparent claim that esotericism is the one and only mark of good literature, as there is a lot of esoteric rubbish out there.

The Bible can and should be studied hermeneutically and heuristically. I.e. in everyday language, The Bible should be studied with a view to the multiple interpretations of it, and also as an experiment in whether or not one thinks it models real life.

It's my view that Nick has drawn attention to one way of interpreting The Bible which we may not otherwise have noticed. Personally, I am still working on whether or not the 'esoteric' material in The Bible is practical for today.

'His Dark Materials', a trilogy by Philip Pullman is a good adventure story and a best seller which is full of symbols; it is a new classic really and I recommend it. One of the themes is that the bad people , in a surgical operation, cut off the spontaneity and souls from children. This is true of Nick's warnings that educational institutions should not do so; and Nick's warning is worth attending to.

[fooloso4]

Belinda:

'Esoteric' is a word commonly used in place of 'Hermetic' or 'Renaissance symbolist'.

As with many words, over time its meaning changes. Etymologically it means within or interior as opposed to exoteric or what is outside or on the surface. It marks the difference between a private or hidden meaning and a public or overt meaning. That the Bible contains esoteric meaning does not mean that we should make an association with Hermetic occultism or with any particular symbolic language. What a symbol stands for is culturally determined.

One problem of interpretation is that with writing that has a sufficiently long history we find many interpretations including many esoteric interpretations. This should be as expected if one accepts the notion that a text can read us. We find interpretations that are distinctive of a certain historical period and idiosyncratic interpretations. Although some may claim that their interpretation is the one true interpretation, I think the best we can do is to show that an interpretation is faithful to the text. An esoteric interpretation is one that uncovers what is concealed. What is revealed must show connections that are not apparent on the surface.

One of the themes is that the bad people , in a surgical operation, cut off the spontaneity and souls from children. This is true of Nick's warnings that educational institutions should not do so; and Nick's warning is worth attending to.

Perhaps in the novels it is clear what soul killing means, but one cannot use a slogan as a substitute for thought and analysis. One cannot simply accuse liberals or secularists or secular intolerance of soul killing. We must also be on guard against any definition of spontaneous that preemptively defines what spontaneity will lead to or what will be discovered. We should also be aware of prior influence. A child who has been taught that there is a God and a child who has not been taught this will spontaneously imagine things consistent with what they have taught.

[Nick_A]

Greta wrote:

The bottom line is that we are each small, sentient fluctuations of reality trying to make sense of their surroundings and conveying those impressions to other (hopefully) sentient fluctuations. It's reality gradually making sense of itself like a baby, but piecing together its understanding one individual at a time, with many contrary perceptions cancelling each other out. This competitive shaping is at all levels of reality, from the interaction of matter and antimatter at the start of the universe to the competition of ideas that shapes societies. That's what's happening on the forum - fluctuations in the fabric of reality comparing notes about what this reality malarkey we have been so unceremoniously thrust into is about.

F4 wrote

Well, that’s very nice but you have done everything you can to avoid a close reading of the passage you keep running away from, pointing instead to a variety of other things.

The problem once again is that you are imposing what you claim to be the inner meaning on the text. Others can see that you are doing this but you cannot see yourself or what you are doing. Instead you see only the image you have created that consists of a hodge podge of slogans.

And so you don’t. You lull yourself to sleep by the sound of your incessant self serving chatter. You are not awakening, you are dreaming that you are waking. You look at the Bible in the same way you look at everything else, through the lens of your own beliefs and opinions. And so, all you see are your own beliefs and opinions.

It isn't that people can't They just deny themselves the opportunity by remaining enchanted with the shadows on the wall.

The irony is that this is exactly what you are doing. It is just that you fail to see that what you are looking at are still images on the wall of a cave of your own making. Part of the reason you fail to see this is that you wrongly assume that if you reject whatever it is you think the Great Beast claims then you are no longer under the influence of shadows; but substituting images for images is just to be led by different images created by different opinion-makers.

Notice in all these cases there is no indication that a quality of objective reality exists the depths of the human heart is drawn to much like a moth is drawn to the flame. They just prefer to create their own reality and the ideal is for people to argue interpretations. What good is it to argue with F4 as to what Jesus meant by sword.. He wants an endless battle over interpretations and as a secularist he cannot be open to anything else. Back to Simone


Excerpted from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin:

At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.

Simone was not a New Age fan and desiring to create her own reality for the purpose of self justification. She was a seeker of truth which by definition opposes the Great Beast.The secular intolerance of the Greta and fooloso4 types do not respect this need since for them this transcendent level doesn’t exist. In school systems their mentality creates spirit killers since the need for this quality of being is politically incorrect and dominant secular attitudes reflect it. How do you think it feels when these secular intolerants tell a kid by their attitudes like those read on this thread that their deepest needs are politically incorrect? All they have to do is believe what they want to believe and that answers all questions. Only a few can stand up to this like Simone did. Does that mean that all the rest should be boiled in oil for questioning the Beast and its demand to create your own reality? Apparently so for secular intolerants.

Fooloso4 believes thought and analysis and the opinions it creates will reveal the politically correct interpretation to the question of the deeper needs of the heart. If this is true then Simone Weil is the nut case people here believe she was since her need was for what does not exist

The obvious question which the secularists avoid like poison is how to know. How does a person acquire the wisdom normal for one who has left attachments to their own reality and find the Way leading to the quality of being known in Christianity as the New Man? Not a clue. There is no “Way” for them. Just pick up the remote and argue opinions. If that isn’t a spirit killing attitude, I don’t know what is.

[Lacewing]

The obvious question which the secularists avoid like poison is how to know. How does a person acquire the wisdom normal for one who has left attachments to their own reality and find the Way leading to the quality of being known in Christianity as the New Man? Not a clue. There is no “Way” for them. Just pick up the remote and argue opinions. If that isn’t a spirit killing attitude, I don’t know what is.

What is the "WAY" that a river flows to the ocean? What is the "WAY" that a tree grows? There is no particular WAY of these natural processes. And there is no particular "WAY" for a person to seek/find/realize attunement. Just as a river can be dammed up... or a tree can be cut off... humans can OBSTRUCT the natural flow of things (including their own attunement and flow) with all of their ideas, demands, and noise. In nature, all flows naturally. There is nothing for the human to DO to realize their attunement and flow... rather, it's simply about not obstructing the "divine flow" that's built-in and already there.

Theists are fighting against what they, themselves, have created. They create noise and demands... all of their definitions about what is and should be... all of their judgments and rules... and all of their ideas about supposed wisdom and spirituality. It has all been layered on top (for all kinds of human reasons) to what naturally exists and flows through all. One could say that what naturally exists and flows is the DIVINE-- and yet, man thinks that he can know it and define it and improve it with all of his convoluted, short-sighted layerings on top. Like a child making a work of art "better" with a crayon.

Seriously, theists... why isn't it perfect BEFORE you layer on all of your stories and books and ideas? Why does the divine flow NEED all of your add-ons and explanations to be perfect?

[Belinda]

Fooloso4 wrote:

(Belinda had written)One of the themes is that the bad people , in a surgical operation, cut off the spontaneity and souls from children. This is true of Nick's warnings that educational institutions should not do so; and Nick's warning is worth attending to.

Perhaps in the novels it is clear what soul killing means, but one cannot use a slogan as a substitute for thought and analysis. One cannot simply accuse liberals or secularists or secular intolerance of soul killing. We must also be on guard against any definition of spontaneous that preemptively defines what spontaneity will lead to or what will be discovered. We should also be aware of prior influence. A child who has been taught that there is a God and a child who has not been taught this will spontaneously imagine things consistent with what they have taught.

"Soul Killing" is my paraphrase, not a quote from Philip Pullman, as far as I know. When recommending a novel here I have to be as brief as possible, and my paraphrase doesn't do justice to Pullman's story where all themes tie up together in a fun narrative with fascinating characters. What matters is that we who care, are alerted to the present danger of what Nick has been naming as "seculars". Nick has gone wide of the proper mark in his "secular" designation of the enemy. Some religionists are what (if I may) I call "soul killers". I urge that people here read the book. The first in the series has been made into a film which I seem to remember is called for Americans "The Golden Compass".This is a serious book it's not simplistic escapism.

I like Nick's venture into that "esoteric" stuff. People have different ways to their truth, and the "esoteric" symbolic stuff is legitimate. What matters a lot is that there are living people, and institutions, who change school curriculums and education policies so that the common people will be docile with regard to big business etc.
I agree , if this is what you are saying, that Nick needs to be a lot more rigorous in his research, his self awareness, and his judgements. However he has raised such an important point about infiltration into education systems of the ethos of big business (Nick wrongly identitifies baddies as seculars)that this theme deserves a thread devoted to it and much more.

I very much recommend Pullman's story preferably the book not the film although the film is enchanting.

I said "spontaneity" with some doubts as to its being what I meant. I expect that Pullman would agree with you F4. I agree with you. My excuse is that I could not risk a more lengthy description.