S02E09 Utopias, Collapse and the Creative Imagination: 
A case for Neville's Christianity. 

Lewis Mumford in 1922 published an analysis of the literature of imagined ideal societies from Plato to the modern era. Did any of them really give a clear solution to the human condition? We will compare Lewis Mumford's conclusions to Neville's view of Christianity and see the implications for society. 

Lets take a look at the conceptualizations of ideal societies to see how this question has been answered down through the ages. Now, he (Mumford) was a multidisciplinary thinker and a town planner. He clearly acknowledges the interplay between the world without and the inner world, which he describes as the collection of ideals, principles, everything that's going on within the psyche � in terms almost identical to Neville's concept of the human imagination 

In Lewis Mumford's survey, most of the utopias people have imagined turned out to be collectivist. That means they were conceived first and foremost to serve human beings biological needs, all while somehow maintaining a rational order. 

At that time the author could not yet know of the horrors of the 20th century collectivist societies. He was busy enough trying to respond to the horrors that he had witnessed of World War I. 

But in any case, I bring up his account of the utopias to point out some important observations that he made � important, that is, to anyone who's concerned about visualizing a future ideal society. 

Mumford worked, or at least he would do soon, as a town planner. And he had a keen eye for architecture, the layout of structures, physical utilities and how these interacted with human requirements. So his observation, in so many words was that there was a huge discrepancy between the realized outer world of drab, uniform, cheaply conceived, cheaply built construction and our historically unparalleled technological capacity to build whatever we want.

His conclusion was that we build whatever is in concert with our inner conceptions. And it was precisely these inner conceptions that are found wanting. 

So having completed this survey, Lewis Mumford's comments were something along these lines: Science and industry have obviously failed to create heaven on earth. Religious vision, including an excessively puritan or doctrinal Christian inspired social order that had focused on the afterlife (that was one of the utopias that he reviewed) - that also failed. His conclusion was that mankind was facing a paucity, a dearth of worthwhile ideals and was at an impasse. Now, here I'm quoting: 

``If this dissipation of Western civilization is to cease, the first step in reconstruction is to make over our inner world.`` 
`
So let's look at a few more quotes just to get a flavor and an idea of his argument. 

``The ideals that have so far served us are now disintegrating so rapidly that our mental world will soon be as empty of useful furniture as a deserted house. 

``So we are forced to consider the place of science and art in our social life and to discuss what must be done in order to make them bear more concretely upon the improvement of man's estate. 

``The ideals and principles of science are incomplete, for they chiefly touch on life in its physical sector. And it remains to complete the span so that every activity, condition may be described, measured and grasped in scientific terms. 

``In the cultivation of the sciences, a definite hierarchy of values must be established, which shall have some relation to the essential needs of the community. 

And finally, here's the last quote:

``If the sciences are to be cultivated anew with respect for a definite hierarchy of human values, it seems to me that the sciences must be focused again on particular communities and the problems which they offer for solution. 

So he nails the problem. It's not in the outward building of an ideal society that the problem lies. It's in the inner conception of that society. After that initial conclusion, what is it that's going to inform a new ideal? He dismisses the major religions. They're not going to help us. 

The author's answer is that from a humanist perspective, somehow we have to build a ``hierarchy of values``. Based on what? This is where his discussion really starts to falter, because after having made astute observations about the paucity of our ideas and how the built environment reflects that, he doesn't know where to go. 

He's let go of any sort of qualitative values. He's relying on science and secular humanism. If only science were properly informed, it would fulfill human needs. But how's it going to be informed? He seems to be grasping at straws. The only concrete suggestion he has is that the work has to be decentralized. We have to focus on the local community. 

So I think the arguments of this bright young man, he was only 27 at the time, really exemplify the problem of the secular humanist position. He wants to set up a structure of values that will inform science, and yet he's looking at the outer world to try to derive such a system of values, and it can't be found in the outer world. 

A structure of values, something of a higher order, would be necessary in order to inform the lower order activities and manifestations. It would have to tell you your origin, your identity, your destiny, the rules by which you might interact with others, by which you might set up government and economics. So we'll give him credit for rejecting the Marxist analysis, but it's a little bit tragic that he was stuck at an impasse. 

Let's bring the discussion back around to Christianity. Christianity was rejected by Mumford due to its institutional excesses and distortions based upon the dogmatic focus on a punitive afterlife. While one or two Christian utopias that he had reviewed had certain merits, he said he would have to reject them because he just could not accept the premise. Despite the beneficial aspects, the unacceptable premise was precisely the literal interpretation of the salvation of a chosen few living in austerity and seeking a remote afterlife, which conditions the whole set of secular arrangements and lifestyle. 

So the tragedy is that he's thrown out the baby with the bathwater. He has to reject Christianity because of his limited concept of it. And yet there's no question from our perspective that Scripture does give the framework for Western civilization and its successful political and economic arrangements. 

Despite the failings of men, and however imperfectly these principles were implemented in history, the the principles themselves are not impugned. 

Christianity as expressed in Scripture evidently operates on more than one level: desirable secular arrangements and inward fulfillment. Biblical principles answer both. 

So here we can start to build a new argument for Christianity. I can only suggest the outline of such an argument. We can see, for example, the concepts of constitutionally limited republics; separation of powers; natural law and the rights of man based on the dignity of man in the image of God; the sanctity of private property. These are all Judeo Christian principles that came to the fore, particularly in the Reformation. 

They're all foundational to both the US federal project, which is, in its origin of the noblest political systems ever conceived; and Austrian economics, which is a highly realistic and effective system of economics that is not used in the mainstream. 

My guess is that Neville would acknowledge the Christian principles that we're talking about. He did live by them, but he would not view action in the political or economic sphere as the first priority. He would not condemn action, but he himself would not join any particular movement or organization. He renounced outward action by itself as the futile readjustment of surfaces, because he preferred to work from the inside. Any particular action has to be preceded by appropriating the state of the wish fulfilled. 

Why then do we even bother with this inquiry? Why don't we just focus on what we want in a sort of hand to mouth existence? It goes back to the problem that Lewis Mumford identifies. We need to remake our inner world. Our inner life is so impoverished, so captured by the frenzy of technocratic society and consumerism that we can scarcely conceptualize worthwhile things that are anything other than temporary and trivial. 

I don't know whether Lewis Mumford had ever heard or read Neville Goddard. I wonder though if he would have jumped at the chance to embrace a truly enlightened Christianity which affirms a divine origin and informs the creative use of the imagination to build an outwardly spectacular world, in concert with a new concept of mankind. 

I believe that Christianity, thanks to Neville's fresh interpretation, can be freed from its institutional distortions and abuses. The ideals that it enshrines will be considered anew to reinvigorate the political and economic order. All of this is consistent with spiritual rebirth. 

Well, in today's episode, we explored the human condition - how to characterize it and how to solve the problem. We decided to start with political, social and economic views as they were expressed through a series of utopias. Lewis Mumford was a town planner and multidisciplinary thinker who wrote a book on utopias published back in 1922. What he discovered was it was the deficiency of the imagination that was really the downfall of (the design of) these idealized societies. 

We decided to leave the secular humanist point of view and return to Christianity and discover that the principles for the the successful arrangement of government, economics and social relations are all there, extant in the Bible. If we could throw off the institutional abuses and misconceptions of Christianity, we could recapture it, revitalize it and use it to build a new world � and pursue our own spiritual rebirth in the process.