Thursday, April 9, 2026

Vi följer bara reglerna

Vad fan är det här?

Målsägande kvinnan i kopplerihärvan tvingas betala 42,000 kr i skatt

So I watched "Annihilation" from 2018. Or most of it. A Swedish TV/movie site claimed that it´s the most scary horror story ever made, et cetera. Naaah. Not by a long shot. In fact, I´m almost tempted to call it false marketing.

A mysterious alien presence takes over a territory in the United States. Patrols sent out to scout the area disappear after first going mad. Four women volunteer for a new mission to this scariest location on planet Earth. So what do four women, one of them a former US army soldier, talk about on an extremely dangerous expedition to the potentially deadliest place this side of the Andromeda Galaxy?

Why, their family relationships and former boyfriends, of course!

Something tells me "Annihilation" couldn´t pass the Bechdel-Wallace test...

The women are weak, too weak for a realistic mission of this kind. In film like this, the actors should be manly macho men. Or female Israeli commando soldiers (hint hint). Maybe I´m missing some clever psychological metaphor. And oh, the mutant bear looked like the next cousin of the monster from "Prophecy" (a half-forgotten film from 1979).

But sure, there are some interesting angles here and there. The alien presence is called the Shimmer. It´s not clear what it wants, or even want something at all. The Shimmer has turned a wildlife refuge in Florida into a surrealist landscape that looks like a Salvador Dali painting. It´s actually quite beautiful, but also dangerous. People who enter the Shimmer get disoriented, suffer memory loss, or die under strange circumstances. The Shimmer expands (albeit slowly) and could potentially annihilate all life on the planet. During the dramatic finale, we realize that the alien quasi-intelligence can "download" our genetic signatures and memories, creating crude body doubles of real people.

And maybe *that´s* the key metaphor of "Annihilation". The Shimmer is really a symbol of the Internet, AI and robots. It´s superficially beautiful (like AI-generated art), yet illusory and mechanical. Everything feels "wrong". The alligators are white, the plants form impossible hybrids, some even look humanoid. The Shimmer turns us into robotic copies of ourselves, incapable of real relationships. And just like the Internet, the alien entity is quasi-intelligent but lacks a real purpose. It spreads like a computer virus in automatic fashion. Indeed, that´s how the main character Lena eventually manages to destroy the Shimmer: by making it mimicking an explosion, something the mindless system does until it self-destructs.

Or maybe not...

Three stars for this production. But no more.

TACO Tuesday

Credit: Michael Tracey

I just realized that many Americans interpreted Trump´s pre-deadline tweet as a threat to use nuclear weapons against Iran. I´m referring to this (now notorious) sentence: "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will."

I took it to be hyperbolic. Interestingly, the Iranian regime probably didn´t take it seriously. Otherwise they wouldn´t have made maximalist demands and closed that fucking strait again. As far as I understand, the holy market didn´t believe it either, since there was apparently very little turbulence at the stock exchanges as the deadline approached.

Is this the first time "the madman strategy" works better on your own population than on the enemy? If so, that´s an original record, to be sure!

Welcome back, I suppose

Credit: The Fourth Way

Overheard on the interwebs: "What you are is God´s gift to you, what you become is your gift to God".

The good old days

From the X account The Fourth Way, the self-ironic memes of which are often hilarious!

Avignon

Did the Trump administration threaten to declare war on the Vatican and overthrow Pope Leo? This is getting more and more absurd. Although I suspect these reckless statements were similar in character to Trump´s grandiose verbal attacks on Canada or Denmark. Who are still at large as of this moment. So I don´t think Leo needs to fear an Anti-Pope on the Potomac. Or in Avignon, for that matter.

Confirmed: Trump admin threatened to overthrow papacy

Fitting in (Gemini version)

The Gemini version.

How could monotheist religions such as Christianity be fitted into a pluralist religious paradigm? That is, pluralism as in "all religions lead to the Divine". Especially exclusivist forms of monotheism (our way is the only way to salvation) seem different to fit in, but if pluralism is true, then even these traditions must in *some* way express the truth of the (pluriform) Divine.

Fitting an exclusivist, monotheistic faith like Christianity into a pluralist framework—the idea that many paths lead to the same Divine Reality—is one of the greatest challenges in the philosophy of religion. At first glance, the statement "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) seems to slam the door on pluralism.

However, theologians and philosophers have developed several "bridges" to harmonize these concepts. If pluralism is true, even an "only way" claim must be interpreted as a specific, culturally conditioned expression of a universal truth.

1. The "Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant"

This is the foundational logic of pluralism. Each religion touches a different part of the "Elephant" (the Ultimate Reality/God).

The Fit: Christianity touches the "heart" of the elephant—emphasizing Divine Love and Incarnation. Its claim to be the "only way" is viewed by pluralists as "the language of a lover." Just as a person might say to their spouse, "You are the only one for me," the exclusivist claim is seen as a statement of deep devotional commitment rather than a literal, objective exclusion of everyone else.

2. John Hick’s "The Real" and its Personae

The philosopher John Hick was the pioneer of modern religious pluralism. He argued that there is an ultimate, transcendent "The Real" that is beyond human description.

The Fit: Human cultures filter "The Real" into different "Personae" (Personal Gods like Yahweh, Allah, or Krishna) or "Impersonae" (Brahman, The Tao).
The Christianity Angle: Within this model, Jesus is the definitive lens through which Christians experience "The Real." The "exclusivism" is a necessary psychological boundary for the community to maintain its transformative power, but it is not a boundary that limits God’s reach.

3. Karl Rahner’s "Anonymous Christians"

This is a more moderate, "inclusivist" bridge often used in Catholic theology.

The Fit: It suggests that the Grace of God, as manifested in Christ, is so powerful that it can reach people who have never heard of Jesus. If a person of another faith lives a life of selfless love and follows their conscience, they are effectively "following Christ" without knowing his name.
The Logic: This allows the religion to keep its central figure (Jesus) as the source of salvation while accepting that other paths are effectively "undercover" versions of the same truth.

4. The "Radiating Centers" Model (The Many and the One)

Instead of religions being parallel paths that never meet, imagine them as spokes on a wheel.

Pluriform Divine: This model suggests that the Divine is intrinsically pluriform. Just as white light contains all colors of the spectrum, the Divine possesses infinite "facets."
Exclusivism as Focus: An exclusivist tradition is like a laser beam—it focuses intensely on one single "color" (facet) of the Divine. Its claim that "this is the only light" is true from its specific perspective, but from the perspective of the prism (the Divine itself), it is just one necessary part of the whole.

5. Esoteric Perennialism (Frithjof Schuon)

Perennialists distinguish between the Exoteric (the outer shell/rituals/dogma) and the Esoteric (the inner mystical truth).

The Fit: At the exoteric level, religions must be exclusivist to keep their structure and protect the faithful. A Christian must believe in the Trinity; a Muslim must believe in the Oneness of Allah.
The Transcendent Unity: At the esoteric (mystical) level, the "exclusivist" walls disappear. A Christian mystic and a Sufi mystic are often describing the same state of union with the Divine. The "only way" is a fence for the sheep, but the shepherd (the Divine) knows the whole mountain.

Summary Table: How Exclusivism fits Pluralism

Concept	The Pluralist Interpretation
"The Only Way"	A "love language" expressing total commitment to a specific path.
The Incarnation	A specific, perfect "window" into the Infinite, tailored for a specific culture.
Salvation	A universal process of "human transformation" that takes different names (Heaven, Nirvana, Moksha).
Mission/Evangelism	Sharing a beautiful "map" that has worked for you, rather than "conquering" others.

The Direct Answer: To fit an exclusivist monotheism into pluralism, you must move from a literal reading of dogma to a symbolic or phenomenological reading. You treat the "exclusivism" as a necessary part of that religion's "spiritual grammar"—it's how that specific path makes sense of the Infinite, even if the Infinite is larger than that path.

Does this help reconcile the "only way" claim with a broader view of the Divine, or does it feel like it dilutes the core identity of the religion?

Fitting in (ChatGPT version)

This might be a bit "in-house", but since it´s my blog, here we go...

This is one of the deepest questions in comparative religion:

How can a tradition that says “only this path saves” be included in a worldview that says “many paths lead to the Divine”?

There isn’t a single answer—but there are several sophisticated ways philosophers and theologians have tried to reconcile this. I’ll lay out the main models clearly.

🧭 1. First clarify the tension

Take exclusivist Christianity (in some forms):

Salvation comes only through Christianity
Often specifically through:
- Christ
- faith in the Church

Pluralism says:

Many religions are valid paths to the Divine

⚠️ The apparent contradiction

Christianity (exclusivist forms):
👉 “Only this is true”
Pluralism:
👉 “Many are true”

🧠 2. Strategy 1: Phenomenological pluralism (John Hick style)

Associated with John Hick

Core idea:

There is one ultimate reality (“the Real”)
Different religions perceive it through different conceptual lenses

So:

Christianity sees:
- a personal God
Hindu traditions may see:
- Brahman, Śakti, etc.

What about exclusivism?

Hick says:

Exclusivist claims are human interpretations, not ultimate truth

So Christianity becomes:

A valid but culturally shaped response
Its exclusivism = part of its historical form, not absolute reality

✔️ Strength:

Clean, systematic

❗ Weakness:

Reduces strong truth claims to:
- perspective
- not literal truth

🧭 3. Strategy 2: Inclusivism (expanded Christianity)

Found in some Christian theologians.

Core idea:

Christ is the only source of salvation
But people outside Christianity can still be saved

Example idea:

“Anonymous Christians” (Karl Rahner)

Even non-Christians:

may be saved through Christ
without knowing it

Pluralist reinterpretation

From a pluralist lens:

Christianity is expressing a real encounter with the Divine
but interpreting it in a Christ-centered way

✔️ Strength:

Takes Christianity seriously

❗ Weakness:

Still subtly absorbs other religions into itself

🌸 4. Strategy 3: Many valid relationships to the Divine (Hindu-style pluralism)

Common in traditions like Hinduism

Core idea:

The Divine is infinitely rich—so it can be approached in many valid ways

So Christianity becomes:

A real relationship to the Divine as personal, exclusive, and saving

Key move:

Even exclusivism is reinterpreted as:

A mode of devotion, not a literal metaphysical limitation

Example:

A Christian says:
- “Christ is the only way”

Pluralist reinterpretation:

“This expresses total devotion and surrender to one form of the Divine”

✔️ Strength:

Preserves religious depth

❗ Weakness:

May feel like it reinterprets believers’ intentions

🔥 5. Strategy 4: Exclusivism as a spiritual function

A more psychological / existential approach.

Idea:

Exclusivist claims serve a purpose:

They:
- intensify commitment
- prevent relativism
- create existential seriousness

So:

“Only this path is true”
is not just a claim—it’s a transformative stance

In pluralism:

Different religions cultivate different:
- attitudes
- virtues
- modes of transformation

Christianity contributes:

Radical trust
personal relationship
moral seriousness

🧠 6. Strategy 5: Levels of truth

A more metaphysical approach (seen in some Indian philosophies).

Two levels:

🟡 Relative level

Religions make conflicting claims
Exclusivism operates here

🔵 Ultimate level

All point toward the same reality

So:

Christianity’s exclusivism is:
- true at its own level
But not the final, absolute truth

⚖️ 7. Strategy 6: Pluralism with real differences (non-reductionist)

A more recent, nuanced view:

Religions may not all say the same thing
but they can still all connect to the Divine

So:

Christianity:
- relates to a personal, relational God
Buddhism:
- relates to emptiness / awakening
Hindu traditions:
- relate to various aspects of ultimate reality

👉 These are:

Different real contacts with the Real, not just interpretations of one identical experience

🧾 Final synthesis

To include exclusivist Christianity in pluralism, you must reinterpret what exclusivism means.

Three main options:

1. Exclusivism is mistaken

→ (Hick-style)

2. Exclusivism is contextually true

→ (levels of truth / Hindu-style)

3. Exclusivism is existentially functional

→ (psychological / spiritual role)

✨ A deeper insight

Pluralism doesn’t necessarily say:

“All religions are equally true in the same way”

Instead, a more refined version says:

The Divine is so rich that even apparently conflicting approaches can be authentic responses to it

🧭 One-sentence summary

Exclusivist religions can fit into pluralism if their claims are understood not as limiting the Divine, but as expressing a particular, intense mode of relating to it

If you want, we can explore a very sharp version of this problem:

👉 whether pluralism itself becomes another kind of “meta-exclusivism” (i.e., claiming it alone correctly interprets all religions).

Strait up

Credit: fir0002

The Iranian regime (which supposedly doesn´t exist anymore c/o Trump) just closed the Hormuz strait again. Oh.

The strangest story ever told (ChatGPT version)

Credit: Ram Shalaka

So I asked ChatGPT about Shukra as well.

Can you explain the strange myth of Shukra, who broke with the devas and joined the asuras, resurrecting them with powers granted by Shiva? Aren´t the asuras "evil"? Why would a deva join their side? Why wasn´t he punished by Shiva?

This is a fascinating myth precisely because it doesn’t fit a simple “good vs evil” framework. To understand Shukra, you have to shift out of a moral-dualist lens and into a more cosmic, role-based view of reality.

🧙‍♂️ Śukra: the guru of the “other side”

Śukra (Śukrācārya):

Is a great sage (ṛṣi)
Associated with the planet Venus (Śukra)
Serves as the guru of the Asuras

He is often contrasted with Brihaspati, the teacher of the Devas.

👉 So from the start:

The cosmos has two priestly lineages, not just one

⚖️ 1. Are Asuras “evil”?

Short answer: not exactly—at least not in the Abrahamic sense.

Asura vs Devas:

Devas → order, light, harmony
Asuras → power, ambition, materiality

🧠 Key point:

Asuras are not pure evil—they are imbalanced or oppositional forces

They often represent:

Ego
domination
desire for control

But they are still:

intelligent
capable of tapas (austerity)
capable of devotion

🔥 2. Why did Śukra side with the Asuras?

Several layers of explanation:

🧩 A. Cosmic balance

The universe needs:

Devas → order
Asuras → challenge, pressure, opposition

👉 Without Asuras:

Evolution, conflict, and growth would stop

Śukra’s role:

To ensure the Asuras are not wiped out

⚖️ B. Justice and fairness

In many myths:

Devas are not morally perfect
They can be:
- jealous
- manipulative
- power-seeking

Śukra sometimes sides with Asuras because:

They are unfairly treated or suppressed

🧠 This is subtle:

The myth suggests:

“Good vs evil” is too simplistic
There are conflicting interests within dharma

🔥 C. Tapas and merit

Śukra performs intense austerities to please Shiva

Result:

He receives the Mṛta-sañjīvanī mantra:

Power to revive the dead

👉 Crucial point:

Śiva grants power based on:

spiritual attainment—not moral alignment

🕉️ 3. Why would Shiva support this?

This is where the theology becomes very deep.

🖤 Shiva’s nature

Śiva is:

beyond dualities
not aligned exclusively with:
- Devas
- or Asuras

He is:

The ground of both

So:

If an Asura (or their guru) performs real tapas
Śiva responds

👉 He does not ask:

“Are you on the good team?”

🧠 Meaning:

Divine power flows according to spiritual law, not moral favoritism

⚔️ 4. Isn’t this dangerous?

Yes—and that’s part of the point.

The myth acknowledges:

Power can be used:
- constructively
- destructively

Śukra’s resurrection ability:

Keeps Asuras in the cosmic game
Prevents total domination by Devas

👉 This creates:

A dynamic equilibrium of forces

🧘 5. Deeper symbolic interpretation

This myth can also be read psychologically:

Devas = higher tendencies

clarity
order
aspiration

Asuras = lower tendencies

ego
desire
ambition

Śukra = intelligence serving desire

He represents:

The mind’s capacity to rationalize and empower ego-driven forces

Śiva granting the power

Symbolizes:

Even ego-driven forces draw energy from the same ultimate reality

⚖️ 6. Why wasn’t Śukra punished?

Because:

He didn’t violate dharma at the deepest level

Key idea:

He fulfilled his role in the cosmic order
He gained power through legitimate tapas
He didn’t “steal” it—he earned it

👉 In this worldview:

The universe is not a moral courtroom—it’s a field of forces and roles

🧾 Final synthesis

Asuras are not absolute evil
Śukra is not a traitor
Śiva is not partisan

Instead:

The myth shows a universe where:

Power follows spiritual effort
Opposing forces are both necessary
Even conflict is part of a larger cosmic balance

✨ One-sentence insight

Śukra’s story teaches that reality is not divided into good and evil camps—but is a dynamic interplay of forces, all rooted in the same divine source

If you want, we can connect this to something very interesting:

👉 how this myth challenges Western moral intuitions and why it can feel almost “amoral” from that perspective.