Wednesday, 1 March 2017

Seven Blogs, Excluding This One, Posts with 500 + Readers or Page Views

Intro on "socially relevant":

What is meant by socially relevant?

Own answer
Hans-Georg Lundahl
studied at Lund University
Written 2m ago
I don’t use the phrase, or not often, but my spontaneous reaction is this:

  • a thing may be relevant in a certain context related to a thing other than itself (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism are relevant for Biblical Inerrancy, while value of pi isn’t, since the passage involves an object which measures for more than one geometric circle);
  • a thing may be relevant to a particular person (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism are relevant to me, socker and American football are not)
  • a thing may be relevant to a particular society (Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism were relevant to Catholic 16th C Italy, Young Earth Creationism is relevant and Geocentrism irrelevant to late 20th C US, Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are both irrelevant to late 20th C Sweden or France.

When speaking about one society, one can say that for instance in it Neo-Darwinism is socially relevant (there you have the phrase) while Creationism is socially irrelevant (there you have opposite phrase).

I am reminded of a time when Judaism was very socially irrelevant to Antiochus Epiphanes or Christianity very socially irrelevant to Nero.

Socially relevant is not an absolute value or measure of value. Nor is it a constant which can’t be changed.

Quote from other answer
When I hear ‘socially relevant’ I think of high school. What did it mean to be socially relevant in high school?

It would start with the question “Am I socially relevant?” That would imply many questions: Did what I say matter to other people. Was it important to invite me to parties? If I was single, was there potential interest in dating me? If I was dating someone, was it ever discussed by others? ...

What is meant by socially relevant?

and look for the answer of Peter Moore. At present, it is the first one and so it is easy to find.

Just in case
anyone were thinking I as a homeless man cannot be "socially relevant" and therefore what I write on any topic can't be either, I note that I am often writing on topics which have very great social relevance at least somewhere.

I also note, that someone would be guilty of going back to the deplorable High School ethos described by Moore if applying this as a criterium on whether what I write should be read or not.

The same obviously applies if some shrink type of observer of my internet actions and other actions would try to pretend that "since HGL am not socially relevant, he's nuts to believe he can make it as a writer."

People do become socially relevant by making it as writers. They very much less often become writers by being already socially relevant.

And yet a third type of person could be involved in hoping I meet such a question.

He might want to tell me:

"You are not socially relevant, why should I care what YOU think on such and such a matter?"

And I would respond that the important part is not my thinking such a thing, but the important part is I have reasons for thinking it. And an ability to state them. While not tired enough to complain about this, I am even able to write them in fun and attractive ways. But even when tired, I am able to argue coherently. If you missed that, you have never read any of my posts attentively.

"Well, who do you think has?"

Well, some, like all of these have been read at least 500 times over, and one of them at least 26 000 or 27 000 times over.

And that means, either it went viral very quickly, or it has gone on gathering readers well after I published it. As I recall the stats from back then, it went viral very quickly.

Now, in Junior High School as in my present mode of existence, I am from time to time confronted with people trying to tell me I am not socially relevant.

If this is true, why do you care about that?

If you care about that, how can it be true?

A man is hardly systematically humiliated time after time unless someone finds him socially relevant, and itches to tell him he isn't.

Here are the posts and pages:

So, might I be socially relevant to some?

Perhaps enough so for some to want me to be socially irrelevant.

Muslims and Anti-Muslims have their reasons for dreading my social relevance. Muslims because I defend Christianity. And Anti-Muslims are often motivated by a feminism which says, among other "credenda" of their new religion, that teen girls are too young to chose a husband.

Editors and experts have their reasons. Editors, because my plan for getting edited involves a challenge to their quasi-monopoly of merchandise. And experts, because my view on expertise involves a challenge on their quasi-monopoly (shared with religious pastors and with schoool teachers) of ideas.

Mainstream Catholics as per today's mainstream and any Protestants faithful to their reformation have their reasons. The now usual mainstream is as far from traditional Inerrantism as the Arian mainstream under Emperor Contans was far from before and after traditional and mainstream Trinitarianism. And Protestants like imagining that Catholicism was a decay in the Christian faith, whether as to Bible access or as to pseudo-traditionalism spuriously claiming Apostolic Tradition or on other issues.

I am being deliberately treated as socially irrelevant by people to whom I am all too relevant. Because they have found out that debating with me, they can't win. I am usually right. If I weren't, they don't feel confident on my being wrong showing up to everyone by my arguing obviously badly.

But there is perhaps another kind of people who would wish me to remain socially irrelevant for a while. Look here on the following quotes:

Two thousand years ago, a crew of members of the Kingdom of Heaven who are responsible for nurturing "gardens," determined that a percentage of the human "plants" of the present civilization of this Garden (Earth) had developed enough that some of those bodies might be ready to be used as "containers" for soul deposits. Upon instruction, a member of the Kingdom of Heaven then left behind His body in that Next Level (similar to putting it in a closet, like a suit of clothes that doesn't need to be worn for awhile), came to Earth, and moved into (or incarnated into), an adult human body (or "vehicle") that had been "prepped" for this particular task. The body that was chosen was called Jesus. The member of the Kingdom of Heaven who was instructed to incarnate into that body did so at His "Father's" (or Older Member's) instruction. He "moved into" (or took over) that body when it was 29 or 30 years old, at the time referred to as its baptism by John the Baptist (the incarnating event was depicted as "...the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove" - Luke 3:22). [That body (named Jesus) was tagged in its formative period to be the receptacle of a Next Level Representative, and even just that "tagging" gave that "vehicle" some unique awareness of its coming purpose.]

The sole task that was given to this member from the Kingdom of Heaven was to offer the way leading to membership into the Kingdom of Heaven to those who recognized Him for who He was and chose to follow Him. "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand" meant - 'since I am here, and I am from that Kingdom, if you leave everything of this world and follow me, I can take you into my Father's Kingdom.' Only those individuals who had received a "deposit" containing a soul's beginning had the capacity to believe or recognize the Kingdom of Heaven's Representative. ... Our mission is exactly the same. I am in the same position to today's society as was the One that was in Jesus then. My being here now is actually a continuation of that last task as was promised, to those who were students 2000 years ago. They are here again, continuing in their own overcoming, while offering the same transition to others. Our only purpose is to offer the discipline and "grafting" required of this transition into membership in My Father's House. My Father, my Older Member, came with me this time for the first half of this task to assist in the task because of its present difficulty.

  • 1.
    In the early 1970's, two individuals (my task partner and myself) from the Evolutionary Level Above Human (the Kingdom of Heaven) incarnated into (moved into and took over) two human bodies that were in their forties. I moved into a male body, and my partner, who is an Older Member in the Level Above Human, took a female body. (We called these bodies "vehicles," for they simply served as physical vehicular tools for us to wear while on a task among humans. They had been tagged and set aside for our use since their birth.)

  • 2.
    We brought to Earth with us a crew of students whom we had worked with (nurtured) on Earth in previous missions. They were in varying stages of metamorphic transition from membership in the human kingdom to membership in the physical Evolutionary Level Above Human (what your history refers to as the Kingdom of God or Kingdom of Heaven).

  • 3.
    It seems that we arrived in Earth's atmosphere between Earth's 1940's and early 1990's. We suspect that many of us arrived in staged spacecraft (UFO) crashes and many of our discarded bodies (genderless, not belonging to the human species), were retrieved by human authorities (government and military).

  • 4.
    Other crews from the Level Above Human preceded our arrival and "tagged" - placed a deposit "chip" - in each of the vehicles (bodies) that we would individually incarnate into, when that instruction would be given. These "chips" set aside those bodies for us.

  • 5.
    We feel that while we were "out of body" between arrival and incarnation, we were thoroughly briefed and were taken through an extensive preview of places and events that would assist our individual incarnation process of bringing our mind - our consciousness - into the vehicle (body) and overriding the mind of the human "plant" (or container) that each of us was to use. This incarnation process is very difficult and cannot be done without the help of Older Members of the Evolutionary Level Above Human who have not only gone through the metamorphic transition to completion themselves, but who have also assisted others through this transition before (acting as "midwives" for some in the shedding of their human-creature characteristics while preparing to be born as new creatures into the Next Evolutionary Kingdom). ...


Two pages from this site:

This other category I speak of are people who believe this stuff and who wish me to be an other body given up to incarnate their extra-terrestrial super human false gods. Perhaps because these two have gone old, or died, or gone sick or gone into prison - or, best for them, even converted to Christianity and sanity. But for some reason, they want someone to succeed such "demi-gods" in their modern Paganism.

I do not wish to do so.

They know I do not wish to do so (if they exist at all outside my imagination, and I think they do), they know I believe sth quite incompatible with their views, Traditional as opposed to Modernist, Biblically Interrantist, Roman Catholicism.

They wish me to have as little success as possible as promoting these convictions, so that perhaps by desperation I should be pushed to inviting the kind of demons they are unwittingly worshipping. And become socially relevant after apostasising.

One of their tricks (same proviso as previous : if they exist at all outside my imagination, and I think they do), is to make Christians, especially Catholic Christians, think I am already on their board.

Some of them might even think so themselves. They might think that all of my consistent writing on the internet for 16 years since 2001 as a Catholic (part time Orthodox but revert) is some kind of irony, and I am too socially inept to realise that some don't get this irony but would take my words at face value.

Well, my words usually should be taken at face value. It is they who don't get I am not being ironic when they think I am. When I really am ironic about positions such as theirs, it is they who don't get the irony, think I am expressing their (and on their views my) views too crudely, so people could take it as irony. Well, if I lend words to their major heterodox ideas, I usually am ironic. But much more often, I don't lend words to their ideas, but borrow their own words from debates.

However, on this last issue with religious such as those of "heaven's gate", this is less apparent to readers of my blogs, because they have avoided debate.

Also, some Puritans, Protestants who unduly identify both justice and decency and Christianity with their own narrow and recent prejudices, may have taken me as already being such a thing - because the kind of freedom of thought and action which I enjoy as a Catholic to them seems pure paganism.

Indeed, these guys may have come before the other type and have triggered the interest of the other type.

With these Puritans, I am fairly sure I am not just imagining their existence. Some have been indirect, but so nearly direct (at least in avoidance of replies after a certain point which tended to come quicker and quicker) that the conclusion, though based on facts I did not record while it all happened, can hardly be doubted by myself, nor by people knowing me well enough to realise I haven't hallucinated the facts as well as made hasty conclusions.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ash Wednesday

PS, adding up the readers of each so to speak marketable blog, I get:

128 408 + 80 619 + 52 255 + 7 920 + 23 182 + 34 941 + 111 337 + 44 343 + 14 968 + 12 672 + 8 488 + 2 144 + 3 245 + 2 303 + 2 174 + 3 068 + 136 993 + 5 357 + 18 081 + 10 859 + 44 530 + 13 257 + 100 461 + 115 828 + 19 436 + 28 189 + 104 654 + 918
= 1 130 630

Limited to only above 7:

128 408 + 19 436 + 136 993 + 104 654 + 52 255 + 18 081 + 115 828
= 575 655

No comments:

Post a Comment