Vårflom i Olterudelva

-Wikimedia.

-Effect.

Gjorde et lite kvantesprang i kveld i forståelsen av mitt a7III, da jeg så opp igjen videoen av Mike Smith om bracketing, og lærte mye i prosessen med å stille inn kameraet for denne oppgaven. Jeg er en såkalt "Slow Learner", dog kjenner man seg meget lettere til sinns når man føler at man virkelig har lært noe nyttig. Allikevel droppet jeg bracketing i dag, da det var såpass seint at jeg heller foretok en enkelt eksponering på 15 sek. Dette bildet av Olterudelva i vårflommen ble til slutt svært bra, var nok noe diffraksjon, men med litt klarhet forsvant dette.

Fotografiet er tatt der Holmstadengen og Grythengen holder hverandre i hendene etter elva. At disse to elvebrukene ikke lenger lever, er en absolutt tragedie, og de som klarer å leve med denne tragedien, har solgt sin sjel til liberalismen og en liberalistisk verdensanskuelse. Skal derfor forsøke å ta flere bilder av Olterudelva den tiden vi er her.

The resulting tendency toward activism has become much stronger in recent decades, and sometimes seems to eat up the rest of the Faith. One reason for that situation is the modern constructivist understanding of man and society. At one time people thought of law as basically unchanging, and the social order as natural or settled by history. Today they feel free to make and unmake laws, governments, and the social order generally.

People view that process as open-ended, and the progressive political thought that dominates Western public discussion is at least implicitly revolutionary and utopian. It wants to create a new kind of human being, liberated from sexual norms, fixed identities, and religious and cultural traditions, for the free, equal, and radically superior social world now under construction. Promoting the attitudes and understandings necessary for that world and human type is now considered an obligation of all governments.

What lies behind that view is the technological tendency of modern thought, which does away with guidance from nature, history, and transcendent standards. On this view the world is raw material for us to do with what we will, subject to logical and practical constraints. All wills are equally wills, the idea seems to be, and in principle have an equal claim to satisfaction. But the need to make wills compatible rules some choices (“intolerant” ones) out of order, and the need to provide incentives and settle disputes means we will always have inequality, at least in the form of rich people and government officials.

The result is today’s mainstream progressivism, which merges global bureaucracy and capitalism with radically egalitarian ideals. A view that’s so entirely centered on human will and collective action isn’t Christian, but the closer you come to it the more progressive you are. Many people who want to combine progressivism and Christianity therefore believe that their chief Christian duty is joining with others in remaking the world on such lines. Their faith thus merges into current political causes that amount to a substitute religion. The Kingdom, for them, has become entirely of this world.

That doesn’t make sense as a Christian view. Nor does it make sense politically, because of the problem of limits. The progressive dream is to remake the world in accordance with human will. But modern thought makes all things—including man and his projects—the outcome of mindless inexorable natural law, and it’s not clear why that should lead to progressive utopia. Marx claimed it would, but the historical laws he thought pointed that way don’t work.

Current ways of thinking exaggerate the opposing tendencies, but there are serious limitations on freedom that put utopia out of reach. Objective factors such as economics, technology, and basic human nature don’t determine everything, but they establish limits and stubborn tendencies. In the modern period, for example, they have made life materially more abundant in many ways, but also made life inhuman in ways people have been complaining about since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

To overcome such strong and enduring tendencies directly—if that could be done—would require comprehensive social control by rulers and administrators. That’s why Vatican progressives have been drawing closer to billionaires, celebrities, and transnational bureaucrats. They want a partnership: Vatican and other progressives will provide the virtue and vision, their partners the power, public support, and practical skill, and the result will be a far better world.

But why expect anyone, let alone political ideologues and people who have climbed to the top of an enormous hierarchy, to have the superhuman virtue and wisdom needed for such an enterprise? And why expect this project to work better than previous attempts to reach utopia through the exercise of supreme political power?

It’s clear, then, that allying ourselves with secular progressivism and worldly power is a bad idea. But what should we do? - James Kalb

- The Constructed Society and the Leaven of the Gospel

Engene er hellige, derom er det ingen tvil. De som ikke har støttet meg i min kamp for engene, har alliert seg med sekulær progressivisme og jordisk makt. De har ikke latt seg lede av naturen, historien og det åndelige, men har et kynisk syn på skaperverket og vår fedrearv. Alene står jeg nå i kampen for himmelengene, selv husmannstroens barn har underkastet seg liberalismens tyranny. Som James Kalb sier det, så er ikke engene råmateriale man kan gjøre med som man vil. Et slikt syn, entydig fokusert på menneskets vilje, er ikke en kristen verdensanskuelse, konkluderer Kalb. Hans forløper, apostelen i Holmstadengen, ville sagt seg enig.

Men hva gjør jeg nå? Annet enn å fotografere?