A study in disappointment

"Sherlock" is a BBC mini-series in three episodes. The concept is simple but interesting. What would happen if Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson had lived today, in 21st century London? This modern version of Arthur Conan Doyle's novels was the most popular TV series in Britain last year. Since it ends with a cliff-hanger, I assume new episodes will be produced eventually.

Personally, I was somewhat disappointed by the series. The first episode, "A study in pink" is excellent, but the two remaining episodes didn't live up to my high expectations. I would give "A study in pink" five stars, and the two other episodes three stars at best. And yes, this seems to be a minority opinion. Everyone else loves the entire series...

In "Sherlock", Dr. Watson is a war veteran from Afghanistan, while Holmes is a real freak. The master detective comes across as a hyperactive, histrionic teenager spouting a Dr. Who hairdo. He has some disturbing sociopathic tendencies as well. Frankly, he's crazier than Jeremy Brett's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes in the classical Granada TV series! Both Holmes and Watson look strangely out of place in 21st century London, giving the series a somewhat unnatural feel. It feels more like science fiction than realism. "Sherlock" also pokes fun at various Sherlock Holmes stereotypes, as when Holmes (an cocaine addict in the original novels) uses nicotine patches to stimulate his thinking, or when people assume that Dr. Watson and Holmes must be gay, since they share a flat together at Baker Street.

Don't get me wrong. These are the things I *liked* about the series. My real problem is the plot development...

In the first episode (the good one), Holmes and Watson chases a serial killer who makes John Doe from "Seven" look like an amateur. The episode contains a number of unexpected twists. This is also the episode which introduces the various characters in their modern settings. In the second episode, the suspected criminals are a group of Chinese, who look and act like 18th century Western stereotypes of Chinese. The whole thing feels contrived and frankly ridiculous. But the real let down is the confusing third episode, which introduces Moriarty. The criminal mastermind looks like a parody of Keyser Söze or something to that effect. *That's* Moriarty? You gotta be kidding, Miss Hudson!

As already mentioned, the whole series ends with a cliff-hanger, but I suppose both Holmes and Watson somehow makes it through, since a new season has been commissioned by the BBC.

Since most people like "Sherlock", chances are you will as well. Personally, however, I was disappointed by the contrast between the excellent pilot and the remaining two episodes.

I'll the series as a whole three stars and await further developments...

This was of course a review of the first season. We all know what happened next, don´t we? Yes, Cumberbatch became so famous that he got a starring role in...Star Trek! :D 

Homophobic, obscurantist and bizarre

Perhaps it's redundant to accuse an astrological tract for being pseudo-scientific, but Mae R. Wilson-Ludlam's "Lilith Insight" definitely takes the prize. These are her opening words: "There is no scientific explanation for the Sun overhead, for the fish in the sea or the air that sustains us, but they exist nonetheless and by the hand of God, just as do the energies - magnetic pulls - that impel man to his behavior". Jonathan Wells and Huston Smith, come back, all is forgiven.

The rest of "Lilith Insight" isn't much better.

There are several astrological objects called Lilith, the most well known being the Black Moon, actually a point on the real Moon's orbit. It's sometimes confused with the Dark Moon, which is supposedly Earth's second satellite, "discovered" by German astronomer Georg Walthemath and later incorporated into astrology by Sepharial. "Lilith Insight" is about this Dark Moon and its influence, which turns out to be generally negative. This negativity is couched in sexist and homophobic stereotypes. Apparently, Lilith turns women into promiscuous vamps and both sexes into homosexuals or bisexuals, something the author considers horrendous.

Here are a few examples of the "influences" of the Dark Moon: "Lilith in Gemini in the Sixth of morals was raped at age 14, married, divorced, then she became a homosexual". "Lilith in Scorpio in the Twelth exactly conjuncts Mercury, conjunct the Ascendant was raped by her father at age 14. By the age 30 she faced the choice between promiscuity and chastity. She chose the former. Mars sextiles Lilith". "Foster parents raised this male. His is a history of immoral experiences, and a mental breakdown. He admits being bisexual".

We get the point, Mae.

More comic is the following "problem" caused by Lilith in Sagittarius: "Desired to study Astrology in class but could not afford it, hence settled for self-study". Indeed. Hopefully, this person's self-study didn't include "Lilith Insight" by Mae R. Wilson-Ludlam! Incidentally, I wonder how a non-existent object can have such a grave influence on our natal charts?

Somehow, the more trite astrology of Parker & Parker seems more convincing...

Perfect, if you´re paranoid

A review of "Lilith Ephemeris 1900-2000 AD" by Delphine Gloria Jay. 

Some astrologers believe that the Earth has two moons. The second moon, known as the Dark Moon or Lilith, is said to have a generally negative influence in the birth chart, at least according to another book I reviewed on this site, "Lilith Insight" by Wilson-Ludlam.

I haven't read Delphine Gloria Jay's book on Lilith, but I happen to have her ephemeris for this elusive second satellite of Earth. Of course, the ephemeris is sheer bunk, since the Dark Moon doesn't really exist, anymore than Vulcan, Persephone, Selene and other hypothetical planets used by the more esoteric-minded astrologers (what's wrong with good ol' Venus or Saturn, I wonder?).

Still, if you believe in the Dark Moon, this ephemeris is probably a must. Lilith is generally assumed to have a negative influence, and as the old proverb goes: "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you". It's always good to be on the safe side, aint it?

However, there seems to be more than one ephemeris for Lilith. According to an on-line article by Sue Simmons, "The Three Liliths", Jay's ephemeris is wrong. The correct one is only available at the Solar Fire software and is based on the calculations of Dr. Waltemath, the supposed "discoverer" of the Dark Moon.

Well, we seem to be left in something of a conundrum here!

Personally, I have the Dark Moon in Gemini, which (according to Wilson-Ludlam, at least) is the closest thing to a beneficial placement for this evil, elusive moon.

Thank you.

What´s wrong with perfected Platonism?

Martin Hengel is a Christian theologian of the more "traditional" bent. Personally, I'm not a Christian at all. Still, I enjoyed his book "The `Hellenization' of Judea in the first century after Christ". Hengel argues, quite persuasively in my opinion, that *both* Jesus and Paul might have been Hellenized Jews, since Palestine and Palestinian Judaism were Hellenized during the period in question. There is therefore a certain continuity between Jesus and Paul, rather than the sharp break postulated by modern higher criticism. While Hengel's agenda is theological (no surprise there!), his arguments in "The `Hellenization' of Judea" are nevertheless quite strong. Reading a response from, say, Bart Ehrman would be interesting.

"The Son of God", unfortunately, is more overtly theological than the book on Hellenization. Hengel attempts to prove that the idea of Jesus the dying and resurrecting god-man is unique and therefore cannot be explained in terms of influence from pagan or Gnostic sources. Now, I don't deny that the Christian concept of Jesus in many ways *is* unique, but is it unique in the sense that nothing whatsoever preceded it in terms of influence and inspiration? Not even Hengel believes so, but he is at pains to prove that "the Son of God" is a Jewish rather than a pagan or Gnostic idea. He mentions various intermediary redeemer figures from the Jewish tradition, discusses the Jewish concept of God's Wisdom (which was often personified), analyzes Philo's philosophy, and even makes parallels to Jewish mysticism.

There is just one problem with all this.

Ancient Judaism was Hellenized, remember?

Already in his book on the Hellenization of Judea, Hengel puts "Hellenization" within quotation marks, claiming that it was impossible to draw the line between the Jewish and the Hellenized elements, both being a seamless Jewish whole at the time of Jesus. This is unconvincing, since the same Hengel has written several volumes on exactly what in Judaism was Hellenized! Hellenism, of course, was "pagan", and that's why Hengel tries to have it both ways. If Judaism was Hellenized, then "Jewish" influences on early Christology might have been "pagan" or at least hybrid. This is the Pandora's Box that Hengel attempts to shut with this little volume, I think.

God's Wisdom was often personified...as a woman. Hengel never really discusses this, swiftly rejecting any Egyptian influences in a footnote. Others, of course, are not so sure. Since Judaism lacked a goddess, it's rather logical to search for pagan influences in this case. Further, Hengel himself points out that Philo was a Middle Platonist, but somehow believes that this makes him immune to influences from the mysteries or from the Egyptian surrounding. A more reasonable position, surely, would be the opposite. Hengel also admits that Philo somehow combined the Platonist concept of the Logos with the personified Jewish idea of Wisdom. This is obviously a forerunner to the famous Johannine prologue in the New Testament, but once again it's difficult to see in what sense this is a typically "Jewish" idea, rather than an idea developed from perhaps three different strands: Greek Platonism, Jewish tradition and (perhaps) Egyptian religion. Nor does Hengel discuss the curious fact, that Philo allegorically spoke of a virgin birth!

The similarities between Jesus as the Son of God and various figures from Jewish mysticism (such as Metatron) are striking, but since these sources are *later* than Christianity, it's unclear why Hengel uses them. He rejects similarities between Christianity and the mystery religions on the grounds that these are only known from late sources, and might therefore express Christian influence on the mysteries, rather than the opposite. But if so, why use late Jewish sources? Metatron might also be a Christian influence, this time on later Judaism.

An issue never discussed by the author at all, are the Platonic parallels to the crucifixion. Doesn't Plato mention that the righteous man might be hanged on a pole? Doesn't Plato also talk about The Son of God who is suspended crosswise in the universe? Justin Martyr certainly knew of this, and even uses it as evidence *for* Christianity, claiming that the Christian message is "perfected Platonism"! While it's true that most pagans (and Jews) considered the crucifixion to be a scandal, Justin's apologia shows that the opposite reaction was also possible. And Justin, of course, was a converted pagan.

In "The `Hellenization' of Judea", Hengel (apparently somewhat tongue in cheek!) mentions that Jesus turned water into wine - a miracle traditionally associated with Dionysus - and that there were Dionysian cults in the vicinity of Cana. In "The Son of God", the author also mentions the Corinthians, who had misunderstood the Pauline preaching of freedom in a somewhat Bacchanalian fashion. However, he never wrestles with the possible implications...

How theologians grapple with these issues, is a bit outside my jurisdiction, but they should at least pose the problem as it stands. C.S. Lewis wasn't afraid to do so, and came up with the solution that we should expect certain similarities between Christianity and paganism. Apparently, Lewis didn't think that this threatened the unique character of Jesus. Hengel, it seems, fear that it just might. His "The Son of God" therefore feels like an apologetic in the bad sense of that term.

I mean, what on earth is wrong with perfected Platonism, anyway?

The statist revolution

"The state and revolution" is Lenin's most well known work, perhaps alongside "What is to be done". It was written in 1917, and published in 1918. Strictly speaking, the work is unfinished. In a postscript, Lenin explains that the October revolution forced him to discontinue the work. Famously, he then adds that it's more satisfying to actually make a revolution, than to simply write about one!

"The state and revolution" is Lenin's most "democratic" and "libertarian" work. He calls for a radically democratic state, a state which is no longer a state in the strict sense of that term, a semi-state based on the immense majority of the working people, which administers society directly without a bureaucracy, while overthrowing the tiny minority of exploiters and oppressors. In other words, Lenin calls for something akin to the Paris Commune. He hardly mentions the Bolshevik Party.

In reality, Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a very different kind of state after the October revolution. It became a one-party regime, over which workers and peasants had little or no influence. The state became centralized and all-powerful, expressing the interests of a new bureaucratic class. At no point did Soviet Russia resemble the radically democratic semi-state of Lenin's book "The state and revolution".

Some defenders of Lenin claim that this was due to the Civil War. Even if we accept this, it's still a refutation of Lenin, since he discusses civil war in "The state and revolution". There, he argues that the armed people could conduct such a war while still keeping the radically democratic form of their state. Besides, Lenin started building the authoritarian-centralized state immediately after the revolution, not waiting for the Civil War to start. The acting Russian government, the Council of People's Commissars or Sovnarkom, may have been nominally appointed by the soviets, but in practice it was a self-contained organ ruling by decree. For most of its existence, it consisted solely of Bolsheviks. Note also that the economic centralization started before the Civil War, with the Sovnarkom appointing the Vesenkha, the administrative organ charged with running Russian industry. The factory committees (organ of local workers' control) were soon squeezed out. Thus, Soviet Russia entered the Civil War with the centralized state apparatus already in place. Admittedly, the Sovnarkom was for a short period actually a coalition government between the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs, but this was mostly a tactic from Lenin's part. The entire logic of Bolshevism pointed in the direction of centralist, one-party rule. See all other writings by Lenin!

Of course, it would be silly to expect perfect democracy during a revolution or civil war. The American Civil War and its aftermath wasn't perfectly "democratic", and neither was the civil war in 1980's Nicaragua. Yet, neither the Union nor Sandinista Nicaragua ever developed into bureaucratic one-party states. The South under Radical Reconstruction came close, but it immensely extended the democratic rights and liberties of the Black population. Indeed, Blacks in the Reconstruction South had more freedom than Russians in the Soviet Union!

Those who claim that the Russian Civil War tragically made Lenin's visions come to naught, downplay both his previous record as an unregenerate state socialist, and the experiences from other civil wars. The real problem starts already with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who (quite honestly) believed it was possible to combine a centralized, planned economy complete with "industrial armies" with a radically democratic state based on "cheap government" directly by the working masses and their armed militia. (A strange combo of Saint Simon and Thomas Jefferson!) Real life has showed that this combination is impossible, or at the very least very, very improbable. If the state takes over the entire economy, i.e. virtually everything, democracy usually "withers away". Sandinista Nicaragua was democratic during the war against the contras, but note that they had a mixed economy, rather than a completely centralized command economy. The South during Radical Reconstruction wasn't state socialist either. The classic promise of the Union to the Blacks was "40 acres and a mule", i.e. "petty-bourgeois" private property.

"The state and revolution", being a rather straight exegesis of Marx and Engels, is also marked by their naïve ideas. Lenin eloquently describes how a centralized state apparatus, controlling the entire economy, will almost immediately start to "wither away" and "die", how such a state would make state administration run as smoothly, cheaply and efficiently as the German Post Office (!), how democracy will be denied only to a small minority of former exploiters, making such a state the most democratic hitherto known, etc. On a funnier note, Lenin also attempts to exegete the rather peculiar Marxist terminology about "the withering away of democracy under communism", a phrase I'm sure future dissidents could use very much to their (ironic) advantage...

Did Lenin believe a single word of what he was saying in "The state and revolution"? I for one doubt it. The work simply doesn't fit the rest of the Leninist corpus. I think it was intended as a work of propaganda during a period when the Bolsheviks needed the support of the majority in the soviets. (I don't doubt that the October revolution as such had broad popular support.) Perhaps Lenin believed in his work as a kind of ideal. The actual dynamics, not just of the revolution and the civil war, but also of the attempts to create an entirely centralized, state-run economy, made the Bolsheviks stray from the course laid down in "The state and revolution".

In effect, they made a statist revolution.

A committee that will remain invisible

"The Coming Insurrection" is a text written by The Invisible Committee, an anonymous and perhaps imaginary French group. The French authorities claim that the real authors are the so-called Tarnac 9, a group of anarchists arrested and charged with terrorism in 2008. This edition is published in the United States by Semiotext(e) and seems to have gained a certain popularity and notoriety, even being attacked on Fox News (!).

The ideological orientation of The Invisible Committee is eclectic. Insurrectionary anarchism, Situationism and anarcho-primitivism seem to be the main influences. Sometimes, the authors do make interesting observations. What I found most interesting was their strong longing for authentic community, something they believe that modern capitalism and the centralized state has destroyed. They are obviously inspired by "Green" ideas and seem to long for some clean, country living as well.

However, the anonymous authors have no idea how to bring this happy state of affairs about. They romanticize riots and criminals, advocating "dropping out", cheating on the system, and forming illegal networks of trade and smuggling. It's not clear to me whether they actually call for drug trade. In the fashion of insurrectionist anarchists (a specific current within anarchist thought), they seem to identify the revolution with larger and larger riots, but the pamphlet contains no real strategy for this either. Somehow, The Invisible Committee seems to believe that the revolution will just happen one shiny day, spontaneously. It's also ironic that these people, who have seen through everything else, haven't seen through terrorism and riots. As if modern terrorism and riots weren't a part of the spectacle! This is especially true of anarchist riots, which sometimes are almost ritualized.

In sum, I don't think Fox News need to fear this French version of the Unabomber. I think "The coming insurrection" will remain radical chic...and invisible.

Elizabeth Clare Prophet on all and everything

Elizabeth Clare Prophet was the leader of The Summit Lighthouse until her death a few years ago. I don't deny that she was very charismatic and strangely fascinating. Unfortunately, her group was probably a cult. As for her message, it seems to have been an eclectic potpourri of almost everything...except Islam! Her writings have the same eclectic quality. This book is no exception.

The main message of "Saint Germain's prophecy for the new millennium" is that prophecy isn't set in stone, and that even the gloomiest forecasts can be changed. The Biblical story of Jonah is used as evidence for this. Indeed, the book contains very few concrete prophecies. Published in 1999, it claims that the period until 2025 will contain both positive and negative aspects, and it's up to humanity to choose which path it will tread. One of Prophet's co-authors, the astrologer Murray Steinman, discusses various planetary transits and comes to the conclusion that we are entering a period of wars and clashes between civilizations...or democratic revolutions and spiritual transformations.

Otherwise, what struck me about this book was Prophet's attempt to cover as much ground as possible. She and her co-authors Steinman and Spadaro discusses Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, the Marian apparitions at Fatima and Medjugorje, the life of Saint Germain, the power of the violet flame, and (briefly) the movie "Ghostbusters II" (!). It should be noted that The Summit Lighthouse considers the Statue of Liberty to be literally divine, so they must have loved the closing scenes of that motion picture...

The book also contains channelled messages from Mary, Saint Germain and elemental spirits, including The Hierarchs of the Water Element, who call upon us to save the majestic whales. Well, Elizabeth, since your group has a techno-fix, I really don't see your point! More disturbing is a prophecy by a female spirit (Mary again?) supposedly given to George Washington, foretelling the foreign occupation of the United States. The book, published two years before 9/11, also contain a quatrain by Nostradamus about an attack on New York.

More as a sideshow, "Saint Germain's prophecy for the new millennium" reveals that Dannion Brinkley is a Summit Lighthouse fellow traveller. Aha! Gotcha, Dannyboy! Apparently, Brinkley (author of "Saved by the Light") saw the violet flame during one of his near-death experiences.

I'm not sure how to rate a work I don't really agree with, but since it might be of interest to spiritual seekers and I feel generous, I give it four.

Bolshevism as a Christian heresy

Some critics of Marxism and Bolshevism claim that we are simply dealing with a Christian or pseudo-Christian heresy, a kind of immanentization of the eschaton. This criticism often comes from libertarians or conservatives who are atheists. This book, "The Russian revolution" by Nicolas Berdyaev, also accuses the Bolsheviks for being a pseudo-Christian heresy. Interestingly, Berdyaev was no atheist. Quite the contrary. He was a Christian!

Berdyaev was nominally a follower of the Russian Orthodox Church, but in practice he seems to have been an independent-minded thinker, closer to Existentialism than traditional Christianity. Berdyaev emphasized individual liberty, while also calling for a kind of Christian socialism or corporatism. There is also a strong streak of pessimistic Zivilisationskritik in his works. His ideas strike me as contradictory. Interestingly, he opposed Russian nationalism and rather eulogized the Early Italian Renaissance. Berdyaev was forced to leave Russia in 1922, and it seems that neither Bolsheviks nor "White" émigrés liked him. He was too right-wing for the former, and too left-wing for the latter. He died in France in 1948.

"The Russian revolution" is a short book first published in 1931. For good or for worse, Berdyaev doesn't analyze the material or political conditions in Russia which made Bolshevism possible and successful. Rather, he concentrates on Bolshevism as a psychological and "religious" phenomenon. The author sees intriguing parallels between Bolshevism and Russian Orthodox messianism and asceticism, especially in their "anti-establishment" forms. He also compares the atheist and materialist Russian Nihilists of the 19th century with the more sectarian forms of Russian Orthodoxy, and reaches the conclusion that psychologically, the Nihilists were a kind of Christian messianists without Christ. The author sees similarities between Nihilism and Bolshevism, as well.

To Berdyaev, Bolshevism is de facto a kind of religion, an intolerant and absolutist religion, which cannot tolerate other creeds beside itself. It's a kind of "Hebrew" heresy, since it believes in a literal millennium on earth (presumably, the author is an amillennialist). Berdyaev regards Bolshevism as a combination of Russian nationalist millennialism and Marxist internationalism. Had Berdyaev lived today, he would presumably have applied this analysis to the Red-Brown blocs. I don't think Stalin's turn to Greater Russian nationalism surprised him. (During World War II, Stalin even rehabilitated the Orthodox Church!)

"The Russian revolution" speaks for itself, and the above is only a small portion of its contents. Berdyaev had the strange ability to cover a dozen different topics in a short book, and this one is no exception. He does sound meandering and unclear at times, but overall this is the easiest book by Berdyaev I've read. ("The meaning of history" and "The fate of man in the modern world" were harder.) Bertrand Russell believed that Bolshevism was more similar to Islam than to Christianity, so it's interesting to read the work of a Russian-born Christian who sees parallels between Christianity and Communism instead. (Demonic parallels, presumably.)

If Berdyaev's analyses stand closer scrutiny, is (of course) another matter entirely...

Neil Evernden strikes again

For whatever reason, I enjoyed Neil Evernden's book "The Natural Alien". At the time, I had more or less exactly the opposite views. Evernden's neo-Romantic and Existentialist form of Deep Ecology left me slightly bemused, but I was nevertheless fascinated by the eclectic, omnivorous quality of his work. "The Social Creation of Nature" is just as eclectic, but ultimately seems to take a somewhat different approach than the first book.

Evernden tracks the meaning of the term "Nature" throughout the centuries. Or at least the Western meaning of that term. During the Middle Ages, Nature was seen as meaningful and significant. Humans were part of this meaningful world, in which every natural object or animal had a didactic message to mankind, a message ultimately rooted in the Divine. This God-centred view of the world was decisively challenged during the Renaissance in favour of a man-centred view, in which the world was seen as an expression of abstract geometrical laws graspable (and in a certain sense, created by) human reason. Somehow, this abstraction was seen as more "real" than the actual nature "out there". The estrangement from Nature continued with Francis Bacon and the British empiricists, who considered Nature to be something that should be conquered by Man.

Or so Evernden believes.

For a long time, the modern world operated on the basis of a tacit dualism being Man and Nature, where Man was somehow exempt from the material mechanisms of Nature with which science was dealing. However, this dualism could not be uphold forever, and eventually the method of materialist science was applied to the human subject as well, in effect dissolving it in the maze of behaviourism, sociobiology, etc. Even humans were thus emptied of meaning, and that's more or less where we stand today. Here, our author obviously has a certain point!

Evernden has some nostalgic longing for the totalizing, divine-centred and intrinsically meaningful Weltanschauung of the Middle Ages. However, he eventually reaches the conclusion that this worldview is unworkable, since the meaning medieval man found in Nature was really an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric projection of his own subjectivity. I also get the impression that Evernden is somewhat uneasy about the purported ability of the medievals to decode the meaning of pretty much everything in Nature. (The scholastics decoded the will of God as well, in some detail.) Naturally, Evernden also rejects the human-centred "abstractions" of the Renaissance and present-day reductionism. At times, he comes close to suggesting that these world conceptions are downright clinical, making creative use of Jungian typology to that effect.

To Evernden, the world may indeed be meaningful, but not necessarily in the medieval or "animist" sense of that term. Rather, he sees Nature and the universe as mysterious and wild. It carries its own meaning, which may to a large extent be ungraspable to human beings. Rather than attempting to bring everything under our control, conceptually or literally, we should accept that a large part of our reality is fundamentally Other. Only by accepting "wildness" can we begin to realize that Nature exists for its own sake, which would then lead to a dramatic re-orientation in our attitude towards it. The last chapter of the book is entitled "The Liberation of Nature".

Unsurprisingly, Evernden is somewhat pessimistic about the prospects of actually bringing this state of affairs about...

As already indicated, Professor Evernden's sources of inspiration are diffuse. In this book, he references C.S. Lewis, Owen Barfield, Carl Gustav Jung, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Martin Heidegger, Hans Jonas and Ernst Cassirer, among others. He also has a soft spot for William Blake, John Muir, Charles Bergman and Annie Dillard. (Who on earth are Bergman and Dillard?) The bad guys in our story are Leonardo da Vinci and Francis Bacon. Evernden is often hard to understand, but I got the feeling that there's a certain discrepancy between his two books. In "The Natural Alien", the author seems to be suggesting that humans are naturally alienated from Nature, but that this alienation can be reduced by creating worldviews which see Nature as meaningful. Of course, such worldviews would in practice be "anthropocentric" and perhaps anthropomorphic, as well. In "The Social Creation of Nature", Evernden takes a more pessimistic approach, essentially arguing that humans should remain alienated from nature, seen as a wild frontier out there. It seems Evernden has become more Existentialist than neo-Romantic.

I'm not sure if that counts for progress.

Premier Lenin is angry

"The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky" (the usual English title) is a work by V.I. Lenin, originally published in late 1918.

The renegade pounced and trounced by Lenin was the leading German Social Democrat Karl Kautsky, once assumed to be a fairly orthodox Marxist. During World War I, he left the pro-war Social Democratic Party and helped to found the more radical USPD. However, he strongly objected to the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, wrote several books against it, and eventually re-joined the Social Democrats. This got Lenin reeling, so in 1918 the Soviet Russian premier penned his famous pamphlet in which he accused Kautsky of having finally abandoned Marxism in favour of bourgeois liberalism. Of course, Kautsky had it coming - this was not the first time the Bolshevik leader had attacked him in writing. For instance, Lenin believed that Kautsky's opposition to the war was too soft.

As most other polemical works by N. Lenin, "The proletarian revolution and the renegade Kautsky" is filled with all the usual invectives and insults. The worst is probably the accusation that Kautsky is more idiotic than Eduard Bernstein (the arch-renegade from Marxism). On the more theoretical side, Lenin has little problem proving that his German opponent have indeed strayed from revolutionary Marxism and hence become a "renegade".

The main problem with Lenin's book is, of course, that he's lying through his teeth when describing the "proletarian democracy" in Soviet Russia, the "broad popular support" enjoyed by the Bolsheviks, etc. With a straight face, Lenin points out that 97% of the delegates at the sixth All-Russian Congress of Soviets in November 1918 were Bolsheviks. Well, of course, since most non-Bolshevik parties had been banned from the soviets by that time!

The book must have been written in a haste (the Soviet premier had other things to do, I imagine) and ends rather abruptly, since the author believed that the revolutionary risings in Germany were more than enough to disprove the Menshevik-liberal chatter of his opponent. For some reason, the work was nevertheless published and translated into many foreign languages, and remains one of Lenin's more well-known works, at least among Communists.

Not recommended.