The sky above the island is a palimpsest for centuries of celestial motions,
as is the sand for prints of youth gone generations; at least, that is the
impression on an open mind whose viewpoint is the pre-eternal.
The tiny island had posed for time-exposures of a heavenly paparazzi
since long before the scandal sheets of legend went to galley stage.
The island and adolescence have disappeared now. All that remains are
some footnotes in history books, this vagrant idler’s prose and, oh yes,
the necklace of youths in its museum case.
Museums and briefer genres are a sanctuary for would-be artists with
open minds and shutters.
I have been pressed close to the glass staring unblinking for hours,
rousing an old guard’s curiosity.
“What is there to see?” he asks me.
“Just visiting with the prisoners, sir. I see canoes setting out at sunrise.”
My press card as eccentric buys much freedom of speech.
“And there is Gauguin by the tree, a child’s unread letter lines his paint
box.”
Gauguin had his problem, and I have mine. His problem was art. My
problem is hidden pearls.
How difficult it must be to prepare the pearls for threading, and so easy to
break the string and see the work undone. There are works which can
never be undone but only fictionalized. Authors do not work as hard as
jewelers. A bunny hides the pearls for all the youths to find on Easter
morning. The reader must only have faith not to be strung along.
The island had its good and bad months. The divers had their ups and
downs. Sometimes a shark would have his way. The youths grew up
quickly in their hardship. Some grew up not at all.
Some things are rare and we reckon that rarity as priceless. How often
does a month see two full moons? But it does happen. And once in a
blue moon a young diver would surface triumphant with a perfect pearl.
Such a treasure was not his. He would give it to the entire village and
there would be a feast. Some became brides during such festivities and
the fuel of the village fire was stoked deep into the night.
Twice a year, a ship would come with merchants who purchased all the
pearls. The perfect ones were for the Imperial jeweler.
Before the empire collapsed, the Queen would wear this necklace of forty
such perfect pearls.
King David, of olden times, grew thirsty from battle; a thirst which nothing
satisfied. He thirsted for water from the enemy’s well. Guards were
sent by night at great peril to their lives to fetch a pitcher back. As the
King filled his cup, he saw, not water, but blood to the brim. He poured it
out as a libation and never took a sip.
The Queen loved her necklace. When the assassins slew her, the thread
broke and the pearls scattered. There is always someone to mend what
is broken when the price is right.
But I see you heading for the exit. I must tell you the joke before you go.
The Queen never learned how to swim!
How many pearls are in the sea? How many stories are in me? How many
worlds are in the metaverse?
I sought a pearl of great price but found only the paste of Maupassant.
Winthrop Sargeant translates it this way: “On Me all this universe is strung like pearls on a thread.”
Evernote
Ustream
Followers
http://twitter.com/zen_forum
Blog Archive
The Examined Life
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Erotic Images
An erotic image is simply an illusion, a gestalt, of countless
colored pixels upon our senses. The individual pixels have reality
and existence. The woman in the image has no real existence. And yet
we are aroused by the woman and are not conscious of the individual
pixels. We can respond to this non-existent image because it
is an outer reflection of something which is actually within us and
which resonates with that inner woman just as the two arms of a
tuning fork resonate and produce tone.
Should some, but not all of the pixels fade, yet the image of the
woman persists. Cells in our body, and possibly even our brain, are
dying, and yet our individuality and continuity of memory persist.
Lockes and Jeffersons and Lincolns die, yet constitutional democracy
persists. Democracy, a gestalt and illusion of countless pixels of
generations of anonymous humanity which arouses in us noble feelings
of justice and inalienable human rights, persists. Stars explode in
supernova, yet the starry night sky which fills Kant with wonder and
fills Van Gogh's canvas with intoxicating imagery, persists. And
should this very planet of ours die and grow cold, extinct, is there
not something which yet persists, somewhere, elsewhere in the ever-
collapsing kaleidoscopic telescope of being and reality?
Democracy is our erotic woman, our Statue of Liberty in provocative
pose, a gestalt formed by the myriad pixels of suffering throngs of
humanity which come and go like mist and spray as waves crash upon
the rocky coast. And our libertine lady, provocatively posed, this
non-existent idea of Justice and Truth, is like Dante's Beatrice,
enticing us up a ladder of Divine Ascent, like Socrates' school
mistress Diotema and her teaching on the ladder of love in
Plato's "Symposium".
colored pixels upon our senses. The individual pixels have reality
and existence. The woman in the image has no real existence. And yet
we are aroused by the woman and are not conscious of the individual
pixels. We can respond to this non-existent image because it
is an outer reflection of something which is actually within us and
which resonates with that inner woman just as the two arms of a
tuning fork resonate and produce tone.
Should some, but not all of the pixels fade, yet the image of the
woman persists. Cells in our body, and possibly even our brain, are
dying, and yet our individuality and continuity of memory persist.
Lockes and Jeffersons and Lincolns die, yet constitutional democracy
persists. Democracy, a gestalt and illusion of countless pixels of
generations of anonymous humanity which arouses in us noble feelings
of justice and inalienable human rights, persists. Stars explode in
supernova, yet the starry night sky which fills Kant with wonder and
fills Van Gogh's canvas with intoxicating imagery, persists. And
should this very planet of ours die and grow cold, extinct, is there
not something which yet persists, somewhere, elsewhere in the ever-
collapsing kaleidoscopic telescope of being and reality?
Democracy is our erotic woman, our Statue of Liberty in provocative
pose, a gestalt formed by the myriad pixels of suffering throngs of
humanity which come and go like mist and spray as waves crash upon
the rocky coast. And our libertine lady, provocatively posed, this
non-existent idea of Justice and Truth, is like Dante's Beatrice,
enticing us up a ladder of Divine Ascent, like Socrates' school
mistress Diotema and her teaching on the ladder of love in
Plato's "Symposium".
Discussing Plato's Dialogue "Gorgias"
To read a Platonic dialogue is to watch ideas in motion, not just any motion, but the special motion which takes place when giving birth. Socrates at times describes himself as a mid-wife, helping minds to give birth. There is a wonderful adjective for this role which Socrates plays; maiutic.
Socrates has two different nick-names in the dialogues; sting-ray and gadfly. In ancient Greek, the word for sting-ray is Nar-kay, or Narke, which is the root word for narcotic.
A sting from the tail of the sting-ray causes the body to become numb. Socrates was called narke because of his ability through a series of questions and answers, to numb his opponent into a motionless cul-de-sac, called in Greek "a-poria" which means "no way out."
Now, the gadfly nick-name denoted the very opposite of numbing. The gadfly, through its bites, could sting the lethargic horse of the state into motion. Socrates also stings up those who feel hopeless by "mytho-poiesis" or making a story or parable to give them a feeling of what it shall be like when they finally come to understand.
Someone who presumes to know is smug and complacent and does not seek or inquire. But also, those who have lost hope and given up do not seek or inquire.
Notice how these two opposite qualities of motion and rest are united in the one person of Socrates. We may better appreciate the conflict between motion and rest if we consider that Aristotle speaks of an "unmoved mover" as that one principle which somehow must exist as a source for everything else.
To understand Socrates' narcotic strategy, we must understand his theory of knowledge.
Socrates had a woman named Diotema as a mentor who instructed him in a theory of knowledge which is likened to a ladder of divine ascent, which describes an inductive ascent from love of objects, to sexual love, to love of mathematics, and finally to the love of the EIDOS of justice or beauty.
Socrates states that "God does not love wisdom, because he possesses it." Remember that the word "philo-sophia" means "love of wisdom." If we have something or believe that we possess it, then we do not go in search for it. We are smug and confident that the wisdom is ours. This smugness can be a form of illness, and the medicine to restore us to a state which is suitable for inquiry is refutation through a syllogistic chain of questions and answers which ultimately forces us to admit that we do not really possess true knowledge about a particular matter like justice or happiness.
We may see this theory of knowledge or dialectic illustrated in a well-known Sufi teaching story, made popularized in the many books of Idres Shah.
Nasrudin is a comical, sophomoric (or wise-fool) character. One day, someone sees Nasrudin frantically searching the street outside his house. When asked what has been lost, Nasrudin explains that he has lost his keys. When asked where he lost them, he explains that he lost them in the house. When asked why he is searching in the street for something lost in the house, Nasrudin explains that it is dark inside the house, and there is more light outside in the street.
Abraham Heschel illustrates something of this problem, in volume one of "The Prophets" when he writes (paraphrased) "We must learn to understand what it is that we see, and not merely see only that which we understand." Our compulsion is to search where the light is better, even if that means looking in the wrong place. Abraham Maslow put it differently: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to become a nail."
Most of what I explain here will be things that I learned at St. John's College in Annapolis in the 1960s. It is worth mentioning that the teachers there prefer to call themselves "tutors" rather than "professors", in honor of this Socratic method, since a "professor" professes to already know the truth, and will convey it to students in a lecture and for a price, much like the rhetorician Gorgias in this dialogue. The term "tutor" better reflects the role of a mid-wife who aids the student during this maiutic process of giving birth.
I would like to focus in quite a bit on this notion of uniting opposites, such as motion and rest.
Socrates and Odysseus share something interesting in common. Homer describes Odysseus bodily build as a paradigm of this uniting of opposites. Odysseus had very short legs, so that when he stood amongst the other Achaians, he was the shortest. But Odysseus had an unusually long trunk such that, when he sat in council, his head was above all the rest, and his words poured forth like a flurry of snow.
Socrates unites outer homeliness with inner beauty.
Rabelais made reference to this quality of Socrates in his Prologue.
Regarding Socrates' homeliness, I am reminded of that verse from Isaiah Ch. 53,2 "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him."
This harmonizing or balancing of opposites is a very ancient notion. The Greeks called it the golden mean. The Buddha called it the middle way. According to legend, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (a term meaning "Awakened One"), had tried every form of philosophy and religion, and was meditating near a river's bank, close to death from fasting. A boat passed by on the river, and Siddhartha could hear the voice of a master musician instructing his disciple as the young student strung an instrument: "Do not leave it loose, or it shall not sound, nor tighten it overmuch lest the string break." Suddenly, Siddhartha realized the wisdom of "the middle way", the mean between extremes.
I realize that I might appear to you to be jumping about a bit with all these topics, but you must remember that when I read the Gorgias, all of these notions are within me at once, as a gestalt, and I perceive the dialogue through this lens of experience.
With regard to the similarity between Socrates and Odysseus, I want to make a certain point about the position of Odysseus' ship in Homer's "Catalog of Ships" in Book II of the Iliad. I am going to use the figures at this URL to assist me:
Notice how the 12 ships of Odysseus are in the exact middle of this line-up of ships, as a mean or balance between extremes.
At one extreme of the line-up of ships along the shore is Ajax, who is so massive, that his epithet is bulwark or "wall".
Achilles epithet is "swift-footed".
Achilles and Ajax possess opposite virtues which are difficult to unite or harmonize; Ajax' size, and Achilles' speed.
We see Odysseus as a mean between these two extremes of opposite but necessary virtues.
Once, in Book Eight of the Iliad, we find one verse which clarifies the logic of positioning in the catalog of ships:
Again, in Book 11, we are reminded of this same geometry:
Ajax, who is massive but slower, is placed closest to Troy so that, during an attack, the approaching enemy will first encounter Ajax' massive strength.
Achilles is positioned furthest from Troy, since his virtue of speed allows him to meet the approaching enemy before anyone else.
Plato stresses this role of Odysseus as a harmonious balance in The Republic
I suppose one might say that the assortment of possible lives for rebirth, spread out before the souls which have drawn lots, resembles the assortment of facts and phenomena in reality, spread out for the mind to choose, or the assortment of careers spread out before students.
But it is not the phenomenon or fact which casts the mind into a certain state, or the career which shapes the student, but rather it is the harmony of the mind, the balance of the student, which conditions the choice of attention and specialization. Hence the task of the Socratic method is not to offer facts upon a platter, or sheet music, but rather to fine tune and harmonize the mind of the student as a process rather than a destination.
It is not the scenery which colors the vision, but rather the harmony or focus of vision which determines the scenery.
What follows may seem a non sequitur, but it is good for the reader to have some insight into the educational philosophy of the college which influenced me; a college which attempts to put into practice the maiutic process harmonization which I describe.
The Motto of St. John's College:
Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque ( I make free men from children by means of books and a balance)
This metaphor of our education as a lens which shapes our vision reminds me of a true story which I entitled "Eighth Grade Existentialism"
When studying Plato, it may be helpful to realize that, in the 20th century, Kurt Godel the mathematician was essentially a Platonist and viewed number as having some independent and mystical existence, along with Einstein, who was a personal friend of Godel. Opposite to the Platonist is the empiricist and positivist, who see number as a human instrument or construction, and a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Remember that over the entrance to Plato's Lyceum was written "Let no one enter here who has not mastered Euclid's Elements of Geometry".
After this long prelude or prologue, we may begin to look at the Gorgias itself.
Gorgias is an orator and rhetorician. Socrates and his companion arrive late upon the scene, just missing Gorgias' demonstration of expository speaking.
We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he taught people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."
I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for that crime.
An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates' benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this simple form of dialogue.
Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for the cat to step inside the dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.
For me, the age old struggle between Platonists and empiricists arrives at a dizzying plateau once the question is finally asked "is reality digital or analog?" which is related to issues of holism versus reductionism. It will be helpful to read this link as a refresher on holism and reductionism:
Perhaps by now some readers are ready to throw up their hands and shout:
"Whatever does this enormous mountain of baloney that you have amassed have to do with Plato's dialogue with Gorgias?"
I am only beginning to realize one excellent answer to that question just now, after hours of reading and writing. The rhetoricians and sophists, such as Gorgias, quite possibly represent the empiricism and reductionism inchoate, while the Socratic method of dialect inquiry represents the holists with their model theory.
I may be quite mistaken in my notion, but it is exciting to thing of the possibilities should such a notion be plausible.
With todays science and technology, we can take images, sound, and even the human genome, and digitize it to a sequence of numbers. If we should find one day that a digitized representation of reality can exactly match reality and be indistinguishable from it, then we may conclude that reality is digital. If, on the other hand, all attempts at digitization are doomed to be mere approximations to the original, or counterfeits, in the sense that the number pi is irrational, then we may conclude that reality and being are analog.
I was struck by all of this when I stumbled one day across a casual remark by Einstein to the effect (paraphrasing) that "no one could ever have arrived inductively at a notion of relativity simply from empirical observations." What Einstein is pointing to involves a branch of mathematics called "model theory". There are numerous axiomatic systems of mathematics (e.g. euclidean, hyperbolic, ellipical and Riemmanian geometries) mutually exclusive to one another in how they describe space, and all dwelling in the human imagination much like Plato's "eidei" or ideal forms. One day, someone notices that one of these axiomatic systems resembles observable phenomena. Ptolemy could account for the observed motion of the planets with epicycles, with an accuracy equal to Kepler's system of ellipses. Model theory has to do with the initial phase of stumbling upon a system which seems to match observations, as well as the later phase of asking "is this system actually the way things are (i.e. the noumena)? or is the system only an ad hoc contrivance for measurement?"
The laws of relativity and quantum and thermodynamics in no way lead inductively to the existence and nature of bunny rabbits, and yet the existence of rabbits in no way violates those laws. The laws of statistics do not inductively lead to the rules of poker or blackjack. Such games of chance obey the laws of statistics and probability, yet we would not study statistics in order to learn how to play the games themselves.
The Socratic line of questions and answers, a series of syllogisms and predications, is the tail of the sting-ray. At the end of the tail is a stinger, the numbing and silencing narcotic of "aporia" and refutation.
Socrates has two different nick-names in the dialogues; sting-ray and gadfly. In ancient Greek, the word for sting-ray is Nar-kay, or Narke, which is the root word for narcotic.
A sting from the tail of the sting-ray causes the body to become numb. Socrates was called narke because of his ability through a series of questions and answers, to numb his opponent into a motionless cul-de-sac, called in Greek "a-poria" which means "no way out."
Now, the gadfly nick-name denoted the very opposite of numbing. The gadfly, through its bites, could sting the lethargic horse of the state into motion. Socrates also stings up those who feel hopeless by "mytho-poiesis" or making a story or parable to give them a feeling of what it shall be like when they finally come to understand.
Someone who presumes to know is smug and complacent and does not seek or inquire. But also, those who have lost hope and given up do not seek or inquire.
Notice how these two opposite qualities of motion and rest are united in the one person of Socrates. We may better appreciate the conflict between motion and rest if we consider that Aristotle speaks of an "unmoved mover" as that one principle which somehow must exist as a source for everything else.
To understand Socrates' narcotic strategy, we must understand his theory of knowledge.
Socrates had a woman named Diotema as a mentor who instructed him in a theory of knowledge which is likened to a ladder of divine ascent, which describes an inductive ascent from love of objects, to sexual love, to love of mathematics, and finally to the love of the EIDOS of justice or beauty.
Socrates states that "God does not love wisdom, because he possesses it." Remember that the word "philo-sophia" means "love of wisdom." If we have something or believe that we possess it, then we do not go in search for it. We are smug and confident that the wisdom is ours. This smugness can be a form of illness, and the medicine to restore us to a state which is suitable for inquiry is refutation through a syllogistic chain of questions and answers which ultimately forces us to admit that we do not really possess true knowledge about a particular matter like justice or happiness.
We may see this theory of knowledge or dialectic illustrated in a well-known Sufi teaching story, made popularized in the many books of Idres Shah.
Nasrudin is a comical, sophomoric (or wise-fool) character. One day, someone sees Nasrudin frantically searching the street outside his house. When asked what has been lost, Nasrudin explains that he has lost his keys. When asked where he lost them, he explains that he lost them in the house. When asked why he is searching in the street for something lost in the house, Nasrudin explains that it is dark inside the house, and there is more light outside in the street.
Abraham Heschel illustrates something of this problem, in volume one of "The Prophets" when he writes (paraphrased) "We must learn to understand what it is that we see, and not merely see only that which we understand." Our compulsion is to search where the light is better, even if that means looking in the wrong place. Abraham Maslow put it differently: "When the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem tends to become a nail."
Most of what I explain here will be things that I learned at St. John's College in Annapolis in the 1960s. It is worth mentioning that the teachers there prefer to call themselves "tutors" rather than "professors", in honor of this Socratic method, since a "professor" professes to already know the truth, and will convey it to students in a lecture and for a price, much like the rhetorician Gorgias in this dialogue. The term "tutor" better reflects the role of a mid-wife who aids the student during this maiutic process of giving birth.
I would like to focus in quite a bit on this notion of uniting opposites, such as motion and rest.
Socrates and Odysseus share something interesting in common. Homer describes Odysseus bodily build as a paradigm of this uniting of opposites. Odysseus had very short legs, so that when he stood amongst the other Achaians, he was the shortest. But Odysseus had an unusually long trunk such that, when he sat in council, his head was above all the rest, and his words poured forth like a flurry of snow.
Socrates unites outer homeliness with inner beauty.
Rabelais made reference to this quality of Socrates in his Prologue.
Regarding Socrates' homeliness, I am reminded of that verse from Isaiah Ch. 53,2 "He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, [there is] no beauty that we should desire him."
This harmonizing or balancing of opposites is a very ancient notion. The Greeks called it the golden mean. The Buddha called it the middle way. According to legend, Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (a term meaning "Awakened One"), had tried every form of philosophy and religion, and was meditating near a river's bank, close to death from fasting. A boat passed by on the river, and Siddhartha could hear the voice of a master musician instructing his disciple as the young student strung an instrument: "Do not leave it loose, or it shall not sound, nor tighten it overmuch lest the string break." Suddenly, Siddhartha realized the wisdom of "the middle way", the mean between extremes.
I realize that I might appear to you to be jumping about a bit with all these topics, but you must remember that when I read the Gorgias, all of these notions are within me at once, as a gestalt, and I perceive the dialogue through this lens of experience.
With regard to the similarity between Socrates and Odysseus, I want to make a certain point about the position of Odysseus' ship in Homer's "Catalog of Ships" in Book II of the Iliad. I am going to use the figures at this URL to assist me:
Notice how the 12 ships of Odysseus are in the exact middle of this line-up of ships, as a mean or balance between extremes.
At one extreme of the line-up of ships along the shore is Ajax, who is so massive, that his epithet is bulwark or "wall".
Achilles epithet is "swift-footed".
Achilles and Ajax possess opposite virtues which are difficult to unite or harmonize; Ajax' size, and Achilles' speed.
We see Odysseus as a mean between these two extremes of opposite but necessary virtues.
Once, in Book Eight of the Iliad, we find one verse which clarifies the logic of positioning in the catalog of ships:
Again, in Book 11, we are reminded of this same geometry:
Ajax, who is massive but slower, is placed closest to Troy so that, during an attack, the approaching enemy will first encounter Ajax' massive strength.
Achilles is positioned furthest from Troy, since his virtue of speed allows him to meet the approaching enemy before anyone else.
Plato stresses this role of Odysseus as a harmonious balance in The Republic
I suppose one might say that the assortment of possible lives for rebirth, spread out before the souls which have drawn lots, resembles the assortment of facts and phenomena in reality, spread out for the mind to choose, or the assortment of careers spread out before students.
But it is not the phenomenon or fact which casts the mind into a certain state, or the career which shapes the student, but rather it is the harmony of the mind, the balance of the student, which conditions the choice of attention and specialization. Hence the task of the Socratic method is not to offer facts upon a platter, or sheet music, but rather to fine tune and harmonize the mind of the student as a process rather than a destination.
It is not the scenery which colors the vision, but rather the harmony or focus of vision which determines the scenery.
What follows may seem a non sequitur, but it is good for the reader to have some insight into the educational philosophy of the college which influenced me; a college which attempts to put into practice the maiutic process harmonization which I describe.
The Motto of St. John's College:
Facio liberos ex liberis libris libraque ( I make free men from children by means of books and a balance)
This metaphor of our education as a lens which shapes our vision reminds me of a true story which I entitled "Eighth Grade Existentialism"
When studying Plato, it may be helpful to realize that, in the 20th century, Kurt Godel the mathematician was essentially a Platonist and viewed number as having some independent and mystical existence, along with Einstein, who was a personal friend of Godel. Opposite to the Platonist is the empiricist and positivist, who see number as a human instrument or construction, and a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Remember that over the entrance to Plato's Lyceum was written "Let no one enter here who has not mastered Euclid's Elements of Geometry".
After this long prelude or prologue, we may begin to look at the Gorgias itself.
Gorgias is an orator and rhetorician. Socrates and his companion arrive late upon the scene, just missing Gorgias' demonstration of expository speaking.
We should keep in mind that one of the charges against Socrates at his trial, in addition to corrupting the youth of Athens, was that he taught people the art of "making the weaker argument defeat the stronger."
I sometimes wonder if our contemporary educational system isn't corrupting the youth by heaping scores of sheet music before the symphony and never attempting to tune the instruments in the orchestra. Society shall prepare and drink its own cup of hemlock for that crime.
An offer is made to have Gorgias repeat his performance for Socrates' benefit, but Socrates convinces Gorgias to enter into a simpler dialogue of brief questions and answers. Socrates gleefully compliments Gorgias on how well he complies with the rules of this simple form of dialogue.
Socrates is leading Gorgias into his dialectic trap. I once saw a cartoon in a magazine depicting a dog, who has laid down a trail of cat food, leading to an open dryer, hiding and gleefully waiting for the cat to step inside the dryer. Once the cat is in, the dog will slam the door shut and rejoice as the cat spins round and round. Once Gorgias agrees to enter Socrates' "laundromat" of syllogisms, then poor Gorgias will find his head spinning like that cat.
For me, the age old struggle between Platonists and empiricists arrives at a dizzying plateau once the question is finally asked "is reality digital or analog?" which is related to issues of holism versus reductionism. It will be helpful to read this link as a refresher on holism and reductionism:
Perhaps by now some readers are ready to throw up their hands and shout:
"Whatever does this enormous mountain of baloney that you have amassed have to do with Plato's dialogue with Gorgias?"
I am only beginning to realize one excellent answer to that question just now, after hours of reading and writing. The rhetoricians and sophists, such as Gorgias, quite possibly represent the empiricism and reductionism inchoate, while the Socratic method of dialect inquiry represents the holists with their model theory.
I may be quite mistaken in my notion, but it is exciting to thing of the possibilities should such a notion be plausible.
With todays science and technology, we can take images, sound, and even the human genome, and digitize it to a sequence of numbers. If we should find one day that a digitized representation of reality can exactly match reality and be indistinguishable from it, then we may conclude that reality is digital. If, on the other hand, all attempts at digitization are doomed to be mere approximations to the original, or counterfeits, in the sense that the number pi is irrational, then we may conclude that reality and being are analog.
I was struck by all of this when I stumbled one day across a casual remark by Einstein to the effect (paraphrasing) that "no one could ever have arrived inductively at a notion of relativity simply from empirical observations." What Einstein is pointing to involves a branch of mathematics called "model theory". There are numerous axiomatic systems of mathematics (e.g. euclidean, hyperbolic, ellipical and Riemmanian geometries) mutually exclusive to one another in how they describe space, and all dwelling in the human imagination much like Plato's "eidei" or ideal forms. One day, someone notices that one of these axiomatic systems resembles observable phenomena. Ptolemy could account for the observed motion of the planets with epicycles, with an accuracy equal to Kepler's system of ellipses. Model theory has to do with the initial phase of stumbling upon a system which seems to match observations, as well as the later phase of asking "is this system actually the way things are (i.e. the noumena)? or is the system only an ad hoc contrivance for measurement?"
The laws of relativity and quantum and thermodynamics in no way lead inductively to the existence and nature of bunny rabbits, and yet the existence of rabbits in no way violates those laws. The laws of statistics do not inductively lead to the rules of poker or blackjack. Such games of chance obey the laws of statistics and probability, yet we would not study statistics in order to learn how to play the games themselves.
The Socratic line of questions and answers, a series of syllogisms and predications, is the tail of the sting-ray. At the end of the tail is a stinger, the numbing and silencing narcotic of "aporia" and refutation.
Authorship and Social Responsibility
A friend of mine, from the United States, once told me an interesting account of his time spent in a monastery. There he came to know an old Russian professor, retired, a layperson, who lived at the seminary school which trained future priests. The professor was a worldly man and an intellectual, but very devout and pious, his thinking very much influenced by Russian Orthodox beliefs. One day, during Lent, the period before Easter, he was looking at an iconographic painting of the final Day of Judgment, depicting the wicked souls being cast into the torment of hell and the righteous souls being admitted to a heavenly paradise. He remarked that the day of
Judgment must certainly be most severe for authors, because although the ordinary person must answer only for personal actions and sins and transgressions, an author must take responsibility for the conduct of thousands or millions of people who are influenced by the authors writings, either for good or for evil.
Each of us is author of our own actions (or inaction) and our lives and careers are our books, whether famous, or infamous for the very few, or simply anonymous for the vast majority. Each of us must answer for our actions in some fashion or other. We pay a price for foolishness or sloth, and we are rewarded and compensated for wisdom and industry. But an author or artist is a different sort of beast from the ordinary
individual or average citizen.
We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what do we mean by social responsibility? Secondly, what is the nature and motivation of an author or artist?
In every society, government, culture, and ideology, there is a stress and emphasis upon the responsibilities of an individual to society as a whole. From the time we are small children, we are painfully aware that certain things, in fact, many things are expected of us, and that there are consequences and a price to be paid should we fall short of those expectations. The notion of an individuals social responsibility has existed in one form or another since very ancient times, in the earliest of governments and polities, and even in the small tribes of hunters and food gatherers at the dawn of history. It is only in the past several centuries that there has arisen a notion that societies have responsibilities to individual members. We call this new found notion of society's responsibility Human Rights or Civil Rights.
Every school child in America is required to read Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, (a.k.a. Samuel Clemens). Twain's novel is required reading because it is a brilliant and entertaining and, now, historic portrayal of a time of slavery and oppression in America. We now know that smoking and the use of tobacco is very damaging to the health. In Samuel Clemens day there was no notion that tobacco might be harmful. Yet, every other page of Huckleberry Finn is praising the virtues and pleasures of smoking tobacco. Many young people have been tempted to experiment with tobacco simply because it was so romanticized by Mark Twain's novels. We may see this negative influence of Huckleberry Finn as an example of social irresponsibility, of
corrupting the youth. We certainly cannot lay the blame for this corrupting influence at the feet of Mark Twain. We must, if anything, blame generations of educators who have chosen to place the book among the required readings of the curriculum of very young and impressionable students without giving thought to the damaging social consequences.
If we extend our notion of authorship and social responsibility to artists, then possibly, we may see the painting Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, as a positive exercise of social responsibility, dramatizing for society the evils of violence and war. Yet, if we study the life and works of Pablo Picasso, it becomes quite obvious that concern for social responsibility was not in the forefront of Picassos mind as a goal or concern or inspiration.
In the 1960s, Francoise Gilot, one of Picasso's several ex-wives wrote Life with Picasso, and painted a picture of a very selfish, egocentric and unpredictable personality. That woman divorced Picasso and married the famous humanitarian Jonas Salk, who pioneered the development of the first polio vaccine. We may certainly see someone like Jonas Salk as a scientist committed to social responsibility in his attempt to alleviate the suffering of many. Though, perhaps it is far more accurate to observe that each author, whether of books or paintings or theories in physics and math, is driven more by a quest for the power of recognition than by some altruistic notion of social responsibility. Authors and creators are most driven by a eudaimonic inspiration or compulsion which drives them mercilessly and relentlessly towards the act of creation, and often, in that process, alienates the author from society as an eccentric rebel outcast.
What of the authorship of someone such as Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of Relativity which made possible the terrible destructive force of the atomic bomb? The ancient Greeks spoke in their myths of Pandora's Box. The name Pandora means every gift or all gifts. When Pandora's Box was opened, many terrifying things escaped which could never be put back again. In the myth, the last thing to escape was Hope. Many physicists felt dread and guilt over the monster of destruction which they had created and unleashed.
Those who are religious and believe the Bible to be the divinely revealed word of God feel that each and every sentence is totally good and instructive. Yet, at the end of the New Testament, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter 3, verse 16 we find this curious warning:
[In the Bible] are some things difficult to understand , which they that are unlearned and unstable twist and distort, unto their own destruction. So here, we see the Bible itself warning us that there are verses within it which are harmful to certain people. In the Old Testament of the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet speaks scathingly of the lying pens of the scribes. And yet it is those very scribes who copy and perpetuate the religious scriptures. Indeed, Karl Marx saw religious scriptures as an opiate of the people and therefore as something negative from the point of view of social responsibility. Conversely, the religious communities of the world see communist regimes in a negative light, believing them to oppress and censor freedom of religious expression and worship.
If one looks at popular authors and artists like Picasso, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Proust, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Thomas Dylan, and many others, one sees that they are rebels, renegades, misfits, alcoholics, recluses. We see that the worlds of imagination which they create in their writings and art are forms of escape from reality and everyday responsibilities of a good citizen.
Now, if we search for socially responsible authors, then one might choose Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Toms Cabin. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed, And here is the little lady who started the Civil War.
Certainly, Lincoln was exaggerating to some extent in his good-natured humor, but it is certainly also true that the nation as a whole became more self-conscious about the evils of slavery after reading Uncle Toms Cabin with the cruelty of Simon LeGree, whose name became the byword of wickedness.
Another prime example of social responsibility in American literature is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which exposed the evils of company towns who exploited immigrant workers in the meat-packing industry. President Theodore Roosevelt was
sickened by the brutality and injustice which Sinclair's novel dramatized so vividly. Roosevelt immediately called upon Congress to pass a law establishing the Food and Drug Administration and, for the first time, setting up federal inspection standards for meat. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, were both signed into law on June 30th, 1906, as a direct result of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. President Roosevelt commended Sinclair for exposing the corruption and injustice, but scolded him for being such a socialist. Certainly, Sinclair seems to be one author deeply motivated by notions of social responsibility.
We even see, in the 20th century, authors like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, examining the state and society as some abortion gone bad, creating a nightmare world for its inhabitants. The passion of the authors creative obsession is closely analogous to the reckless abandon of sexual passion. In Orwell's novel, 1984, it is a love scene of wild abandon in a secluded woods which symbolizes the rebelliousness and isolation of the individuals will to power. It is the State of Big Brother which crushes the sexual feelings of the protagonist during his imprisonment.
We easily come to see society and the state, not in their day to day reality, but in the fictional picture which is painted for us by novelists and philosophers and historians. We romanticize our notion of the state until we become like America, carrying its holy grail of democracy and freedom to the four corners of the globe through diplomacy or force, to the willing and unwilling alike. As social activists, driven by our ideologies we become Christs running about everywhere seeking out the
largest cross, and then gathering about us a reluctant crowd of Herods.
In Genesis it is said of Abraham that he believed the promise of the divine vision, and that his very belief was counted to him as a form of righteousness or correct action, which also goes by the name of social responsibility. But by the time we come to the end of the Book of Job, God is saying to Job, Tell your friends that I am angry with them because they BELIEVED about me incorrectly. We see how ideology and theory and belief gradually supplant the individual and his daily actions and conduct in life. Finally, by the time we arrive at Jesus and his Apostles and Paul, we are told that we are utterly worthless and hopeless no matter what we do, but that there is a way to be forgiven, if only we will embrace a certain belief. Communism and Capitalism are both jealous gods preaching their ideology to the world and offering forgiveness and shelter in return. A certain physicist once pointed out that, in a gaseous collection of molecules, each individual molecule enjoys the utmost random chaotic freedom of chance. No one may say what a given individual molecule will do at any given moment. And yet, the mass of molecules as a whole is under strict obedience to various laws of temperature and pressure and gravity. The fiery rebel freedom of any single renegade molecule represents the force of hundreds or thousands of molecules robbed of their vigor and spontaneity and exiled to an icy state of passivity and inaction.
Plato explored many notions of social responsibility his dialogues, most notably The Republic. Plato proposes to examine the State as a kind of microscope to view the soul written in large letters. Plato envisioned philosopher kings in a society which saw the noble character of its citizens as its product and enterprise. Remember that Socrates was put to death for allegedly corrupting the youth through his teachings,
whether oral or written we know not.
That great German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, said that we must always act in such a way that we treat individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to some end.
Psychiatrist John Powell wrote: "To live fully, we must learn to use things and love people, not love things and use people."
http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/psychology.htm
Gradually, over the millennia, our notion of social responsibility has evolved and shifted from the prehistoric hunters and warriors duty to his tribe, and has done a hundred and eighty degree about face. Now the great emphasis is upon society's
duty to the individual in the form of human rights or civil rights.
In light of the above considerations, I must personally conclude that the notion of social responsibility of the author is something alien and unknown to the author, imposed posthumously by a reading public. Responsibility, if it lies anywhere at all, lies in the appetites and demands of the consumer public, who clamor for an endless stream of murders, rapes, cataclysms, wars, monsters and even alien invasions from outer space. Our true responsibility is to our own inner space first. If we personally make that inner space of the heart in order, then the orderliness of society will perhaps follow more naturally. Perhaps the real truth is that both religion and politics are the opiates of the soul, lulling it into complacency, apathy and indifference.
Judgment must certainly be most severe for authors, because although the ordinary person must answer only for personal actions and sins and transgressions, an author must take responsibility for the conduct of thousands or millions of people who are influenced by the authors writings, either for good or for evil.
Each of us is author of our own actions (or inaction) and our lives and careers are our books, whether famous, or infamous for the very few, or simply anonymous for the vast majority. Each of us must answer for our actions in some fashion or other. We pay a price for foolishness or sloth, and we are rewarded and compensated for wisdom and industry. But an author or artist is a different sort of beast from the ordinary
individual or average citizen.
We must ask ourselves two questions. First, what do we mean by social responsibility? Secondly, what is the nature and motivation of an author or artist?
In every society, government, culture, and ideology, there is a stress and emphasis upon the responsibilities of an individual to society as a whole. From the time we are small children, we are painfully aware that certain things, in fact, many things are expected of us, and that there are consequences and a price to be paid should we fall short of those expectations. The notion of an individuals social responsibility has existed in one form or another since very ancient times, in the earliest of governments and polities, and even in the small tribes of hunters and food gatherers at the dawn of history. It is only in the past several centuries that there has arisen a notion that societies have responsibilities to individual members. We call this new found notion of society's responsibility Human Rights or Civil Rights.
Every school child in America is required to read Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, (a.k.a. Samuel Clemens). Twain's novel is required reading because it is a brilliant and entertaining and, now, historic portrayal of a time of slavery and oppression in America. We now know that smoking and the use of tobacco is very damaging to the health. In Samuel Clemens day there was no notion that tobacco might be harmful. Yet, every other page of Huckleberry Finn is praising the virtues and pleasures of smoking tobacco. Many young people have been tempted to experiment with tobacco simply because it was so romanticized by Mark Twain's novels. We may see this negative influence of Huckleberry Finn as an example of social irresponsibility, of
corrupting the youth. We certainly cannot lay the blame for this corrupting influence at the feet of Mark Twain. We must, if anything, blame generations of educators who have chosen to place the book among the required readings of the curriculum of very young and impressionable students without giving thought to the damaging social consequences.
If we extend our notion of authorship and social responsibility to artists, then possibly, we may see the painting Guernica, by Pablo Picasso, as a positive exercise of social responsibility, dramatizing for society the evils of violence and war. Yet, if we study the life and works of Pablo Picasso, it becomes quite obvious that concern for social responsibility was not in the forefront of Picassos mind as a goal or concern or inspiration.
In the 1960s, Francoise Gilot, one of Picasso's several ex-wives wrote Life with Picasso, and painted a picture of a very selfish, egocentric and unpredictable personality. That woman divorced Picasso and married the famous humanitarian Jonas Salk, who pioneered the development of the first polio vaccine. We may certainly see someone like Jonas Salk as a scientist committed to social responsibility in his attempt to alleviate the suffering of many. Though, perhaps it is far more accurate to observe that each author, whether of books or paintings or theories in physics and math, is driven more by a quest for the power of recognition than by some altruistic notion of social responsibility. Authors and creators are most driven by a eudaimonic inspiration or compulsion which drives them mercilessly and relentlessly towards the act of creation, and often, in that process, alienates the author from society as an eccentric rebel outcast.
What of the authorship of someone such as Albert Einstein, the author of the theory of Relativity which made possible the terrible destructive force of the atomic bomb? The ancient Greeks spoke in their myths of Pandora's Box. The name Pandora means every gift or all gifts. When Pandora's Box was opened, many terrifying things escaped which could never be put back again. In the myth, the last thing to escape was Hope. Many physicists felt dread and guilt over the monster of destruction which they had created and unleashed.
Those who are religious and believe the Bible to be the divinely revealed word of God feel that each and every sentence is totally good and instructive. Yet, at the end of the New Testament, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Chapter 3, verse 16 we find this curious warning:
[In the Bible] are some things difficult to understand , which they that are unlearned and unstable twist and distort, unto their own destruction. So here, we see the Bible itself warning us that there are verses within it which are harmful to certain people. In the Old Testament of the Bible, in the Book of Jeremiah, the prophet speaks scathingly of the lying pens of the scribes. And yet it is those very scribes who copy and perpetuate the religious scriptures. Indeed, Karl Marx saw religious scriptures as an opiate of the people and therefore as something negative from the point of view of social responsibility. Conversely, the religious communities of the world see communist regimes in a negative light, believing them to oppress and censor freedom of religious expression and worship.
If one looks at popular authors and artists like Picasso, Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Proust, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Thomas Dylan, and many others, one sees that they are rebels, renegades, misfits, alcoholics, recluses. We see that the worlds of imagination which they create in their writings and art are forms of escape from reality and everyday responsibilities of a good citizen.
Now, if we search for socially responsible authors, then one might choose Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Toms Cabin. When Abraham Lincoln met Harriet Beecher Stowe, he exclaimed, And here is the little lady who started the Civil War.
Certainly, Lincoln was exaggerating to some extent in his good-natured humor, but it is certainly also true that the nation as a whole became more self-conscious about the evils of slavery after reading Uncle Toms Cabin with the cruelty of Simon LeGree, whose name became the byword of wickedness.
Another prime example of social responsibility in American literature is The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which exposed the evils of company towns who exploited immigrant workers in the meat-packing industry. President Theodore Roosevelt was
sickened by the brutality and injustice which Sinclair's novel dramatized so vividly. Roosevelt immediately called upon Congress to pass a law establishing the Food and Drug Administration and, for the first time, setting up federal inspection standards for meat. The Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, were both signed into law on June 30th, 1906, as a direct result of Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle. President Roosevelt commended Sinclair for exposing the corruption and injustice, but scolded him for being such a socialist. Certainly, Sinclair seems to be one author deeply motivated by notions of social responsibility.
We even see, in the 20th century, authors like George Orwell and Aldous Huxley, examining the state and society as some abortion gone bad, creating a nightmare world for its inhabitants. The passion of the authors creative obsession is closely analogous to the reckless abandon of sexual passion. In Orwell's novel, 1984, it is a love scene of wild abandon in a secluded woods which symbolizes the rebelliousness and isolation of the individuals will to power. It is the State of Big Brother which crushes the sexual feelings of the protagonist during his imprisonment.
We easily come to see society and the state, not in their day to day reality, but in the fictional picture which is painted for us by novelists and philosophers and historians. We romanticize our notion of the state until we become like America, carrying its holy grail of democracy and freedom to the four corners of the globe through diplomacy or force, to the willing and unwilling alike. As social activists, driven by our ideologies we become Christs running about everywhere seeking out the
largest cross, and then gathering about us a reluctant crowd of Herods.
In Genesis it is said of Abraham that he believed the promise of the divine vision, and that his very belief was counted to him as a form of righteousness or correct action, which also goes by the name of social responsibility. But by the time we come to the end of the Book of Job, God is saying to Job, Tell your friends that I am angry with them because they BELIEVED about me incorrectly. We see how ideology and theory and belief gradually supplant the individual and his daily actions and conduct in life. Finally, by the time we arrive at Jesus and his Apostles and Paul, we are told that we are utterly worthless and hopeless no matter what we do, but that there is a way to be forgiven, if only we will embrace a certain belief. Communism and Capitalism are both jealous gods preaching their ideology to the world and offering forgiveness and shelter in return. A certain physicist once pointed out that, in a gaseous collection of molecules, each individual molecule enjoys the utmost random chaotic freedom of chance. No one may say what a given individual molecule will do at any given moment. And yet, the mass of molecules as a whole is under strict obedience to various laws of temperature and pressure and gravity. The fiery rebel freedom of any single renegade molecule represents the force of hundreds or thousands of molecules robbed of their vigor and spontaneity and exiled to an icy state of passivity and inaction.
Plato explored many notions of social responsibility his dialogues, most notably The Republic. Plato proposes to examine the State as a kind of microscope to view the soul written in large letters. Plato envisioned philosopher kings in a society which saw the noble character of its citizens as its product and enterprise. Remember that Socrates was put to death for allegedly corrupting the youth through his teachings,
whether oral or written we know not.
That great German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant, said that we must always act in such a way that we treat individuals as ends in themselves rather than as means to some end.
Psychiatrist John Powell wrote: "To live fully, we must learn to use things and love people, not love things and use people."
http://www.meaningoflife.i12.com/psychology.htm
Gradually, over the millennia, our notion of social responsibility has evolved and shifted from the prehistoric hunters and warriors duty to his tribe, and has done a hundred and eighty degree about face. Now the great emphasis is upon society's
duty to the individual in the form of human rights or civil rights.
In light of the above considerations, I must personally conclude that the notion of social responsibility of the author is something alien and unknown to the author, imposed posthumously by a reading public. Responsibility, if it lies anywhere at all, lies in the appetites and demands of the consumer public, who clamor for an endless stream of murders, rapes, cataclysms, wars, monsters and even alien invasions from outer space. Our true responsibility is to our own inner space first. If we personally make that inner space of the heart in order, then the orderliness of society will perhaps follow more naturally. Perhaps the real truth is that both religion and politics are the opiates of the soul, lulling it into complacency, apathy and indifference.
Sentiments In and Regarding France
http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/news/351463
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
"That's some denouement
whoa (Oct 9 2005 - 00:47)
Thanks, Quackshot, for proving my point. Americans do not know enough about France to do any serious bashing, and the French are winning this contest."
Everybody loses.
Some believe that opposites attract and likes repel: American exceptionalism and French l'exception culturelle.
But could it be that much of the anti-US sentiment in France actually starts with the elitists at the top only to have it returned to them by the ignorant in the US? My understanding is that, for the most part, French people, young and old alike, like or have no dislike for America and Americans. Ask French elitists how they feel about a Big Mac and the invasion of English into the French language.
The mainstream media in both countries are conspirators in this. Hysteria sells newspapers.
"All the american things are completely forbidden or boycotted"
BS. It is obvious that QUACKSHOT has never been in France, even for a few hours. Or maybe it was before WW One! American music, American movies, American novels, the American way of life, all the newest American trends are everywhere, at every corner of the French society.
True, there is some anti-americanism in France, usually politicians or journalists on both side of the political spectrum. They blame America for everything because they refuse to blame themselves for their mistakes. A bunch of arrogant morons but they represent only a few percent of France.
"Subway ran the ads in about 10 states for nearly a month and pulled them in September following an outcry by members of the French expatriate community and other customers offended by the racist undertone."
How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist? There is no racial component to the ad. Are the French as separate race? They may feel that way but I don't beleive they are.
Also, do the French really have such thin skin? It's not as if we accused them of being Nazi's or imperialists or anything (as they refer to the US all the time). The elite's in France are constantly bashing the US and asserting the moral superiority of the French way. It's only natural that there will be a little of their arrogance and mean-spireted way of thinking thrown back at them.
American's understand that France care's only about France and it's own feeling of moral superiority. Any help that American's have gotten or are receiving from France is only for their own benefit. Conversely, America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return (and you can bet your last euro that the US got nothing in return for their sacrifices either).
I think someone in an earlier post had it right - JT is just trying to instigate a self-rightgeous back and forth between people that support America and those that hate America. The stories that are put up on this site are carefully selected. Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself.
"Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself."
Amen!!
"America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return"
Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!
Keep living in your own world dude....
Wolfpack: "How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist?"
Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste."
(And being the most important person on the planet this probably means something to you.)
Believe it or not, capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar.
I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
Not to mention that has nothing to do with my comment, which was to say that American acceptance of that ad is a form of self-bashing.
"I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign."
So would I, so we agree on something!
Selling French-style chicken with an anti-French message. They ran that idiotic ad for 10 months?
Subway needs a new Ad Agency.
That's capitalism.
"Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!"
So you are trying to convice me that FDR wanted to make a deal with the Nazi-backed French Vichey government during WWII? I guess the US was going to put an Iron Curtain around France - and only France - and not seek to make any of the other Western European countries into some 'puppet regime'. Your French nationalism is getting a bit nutty dude. Care to cite any respected source to back this claim up?
America has been generous and it's such ungratefulness as you are displaying that makes American's dislike France.
"Keep living in your own world dude...."
I am. It's called the real world.
"Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America."
Heck yeah it is humurous! You - and apparently the French - have no sense of humour. I would guess that after having the French look down their noses at the British for so long that more than a few Brit's would consider it humurous as well.
Lighten up - you will live longer.
"http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html"
Pretty funny Pasquinade. I guess those thin skinned America-haters will not get many laughs from it. To each their own I guess.
Never saw ad, americans hate? WolfpackWhoa
yondervu Click here to see all messages by yondervu Click here to see member profile (Oct 11 2005 - 02:13) Rate | Report
Never saw the ad, but having seen other subway ads and reading the article, it was probably humorous in a small way.
By the way, Americans don't hate French. Just poking fun. Hate is a very strong word, besides it would take a lot more than the Iraq Liberation/War to make us forget about the Statue of Liberty. We just think they are on one of those strange steaks, like the time they went fascist, you konw. It won't last, we'll be on good terms eventually, I am sure.
Hey, when can I get this sandwich? I tried their Chicken Parm., man did it suck. Wheh !! No I mean really, I thought I might vomit. Needless to say I won't buy that again.
As for lack of American taste, I have to admit Subway does kinda suck, McDonalds sucks too. Pizza Hut is awful. Yeh, you are probably right.
Try this one: http://www.tedrall.com/longarticle_011.htm
Only for you, here is one part of a Roosevelt letter to Churchill:
"I am more and more of the opinion that we should consider France as a militarily-occupied nation and governed by British and American generals...We would keep 90% of the [Vichy] mayors and a large percentage of the lesser bureaucrats of the cities and departments. But the important posts would remain the responsibility of the military commander, American and British. This will last between six months and a year...Perhaps [General Charles] de Gaulle can become governor of Madagascar."
Enjoy the rest. Also, check out this biography of a Vichy offical: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bldoubledealer1.htm one more part for you:
"It is also probable that Roosevelt saw in Darlan the ideal pawn for his postwar plans for France--a country for which the president had low regard. He not only favored stripping the French of their sprawling overseas empire but intended to carve up the nation, significantly reducing its area, to deny France any part in the eventual peace settlement, membership in the United Nations, or role in the postwar occupation of Germany. Darlan evidently struck Roosevelt as a malleable puppet whom he could use to further his ideas for postwar France."
I didn't know teaching you a bit of history was "nationalism";-) your statement that your beloved US of A only provides unconditional help throughout the world is a day dream dude. As any good country, the US does things for self interest.
Corporations side with neither left nor right.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
---
Not economics. Please see above: "Corporations side with neither left nor right."
And let's not talk about whether or not corporations pay taxes. We'll save that for another time.
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
"That's some denouement
whoa (Oct 9 2005 - 00:47)
Thanks, Quackshot, for proving my point. Americans do not know enough about France to do any serious bashing, and the French are winning this contest."
Everybody loses.
Some believe that opposites attract and likes repel: American exceptionalism and French l'exception culturelle.
But could it be that much of the anti-US sentiment in France actually starts with the elitists at the top only to have it returned to them by the ignorant in the US? My understanding is that, for the most part, French people, young and old alike, like or have no dislike for America and Americans. Ask French elitists how they feel about a Big Mac and the invasion of English into the French language.
The mainstream media in both countries are conspirators in this. Hysteria sells newspapers.
"All the american things are completely forbidden or boycotted"
BS. It is obvious that QUACKSHOT has never been in France, even for a few hours. Or maybe it was before WW One! American music, American movies, American novels, the American way of life, all the newest American trends are everywhere, at every corner of the French society.
True, there is some anti-americanism in France, usually politicians or journalists on both side of the political spectrum. They blame America for everything because they refuse to blame themselves for their mistakes. A bunch of arrogant morons but they represent only a few percent of France.
"Subway ran the ads in about 10 states for nearly a month and pulled them in September following an outcry by members of the French expatriate community and other customers offended by the racist undertone."
How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist? There is no racial component to the ad. Are the French as separate race? They may feel that way but I don't beleive they are.
Also, do the French really have such thin skin? It's not as if we accused them of being Nazi's or imperialists or anything (as they refer to the US all the time). The elite's in France are constantly bashing the US and asserting the moral superiority of the French way. It's only natural that there will be a little of their arrogance and mean-spireted way of thinking thrown back at them.
American's understand that France care's only about France and it's own feeling of moral superiority. Any help that American's have gotten or are receiving from France is only for their own benefit. Conversely, America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return (and you can bet your last euro that the US got nothing in return for their sacrifices either).
I think someone in an earlier post had it right - JT is just trying to instigate a self-rightgeous back and forth between people that support America and those that hate America. The stories that are put up on this site are carefully selected. Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself.
"Anything negative about the US is quickly put up here. Conversely, stories that are negative about the international community are soft pedaled or ignored. When the recent UN reform confab in New York failed miserably, I looked for an article about it on JT and one never appeared (at least that I could fine). This was a major news event and a major failure on the part of the UN to reform itself."
Amen!!
"America has spent a lot of money and lost many lives for France and did not expect anything in return"
Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!
Keep living in your own world dude....
Wolfpack: "How in the world can this somewhat humorous advertisement be considered racist?"
Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste.
http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html
French bashing alive and well in U.S.
The way I see it, the ad is actually a form of self-bashing, demonstrating the lack of American taste."
(And being the most important person on the planet this probably means something to you.)
Believe it or not, capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar.
I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
Not to mention that has nothing to do with my comment, which was to say that American acceptance of that ad is a form of self-bashing.
"I'd like to know the response rate as well as ROI for this campaign."
So would I, so we agree on something!
Selling French-style chicken with an anti-French message. They ran that idiotic ad for 10 months?
Subway needs a new Ad Agency.
That's capitalism.
"Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha. Yeah, right, America only does things by pure generosity. Try to take some info about how Roosevelt wanted to block De Gaulle and negotiate with the Vichy government to install a puppet regime who would have nothing to refuse to the US. It's not in your school history books but a bit extra search could enlighten you!"
So you are trying to convice me that FDR wanted to make a deal with the Nazi-backed French Vichey government during WWII? I guess the US was going to put an Iron Curtain around France - and only France - and not seek to make any of the other Western European countries into some 'puppet regime'. Your French nationalism is getting a bit nutty dude. Care to cite any respected source to back this claim up?
America has been generous and it's such ungratefulness as you are displaying that makes American's dislike France.
"Keep living in your own world dude...."
I am. It's called the real world.
"Where in the world can this ad be considered "somewhat humorous"? Only in America."
Heck yeah it is humurous! You - and apparently the French - have no sense of humour. I would guess that after having the French look down their noses at the British for so long that more than a few Brit's would consider it humurous as well.
Lighten up - you will live longer.
"http://www.strangepolitics.com/content/item/100582.html"
Pretty funny Pasquinade. I guess those thin skinned America-haters will not get many laughs from it. To each their own I guess.
Never saw ad, americans hate? WolfpackWhoa
yondervu Click here to see all messages by yondervu Click here to see member profile (Oct 11 2005 - 02:13) Rate | Report
Never saw the ad, but having seen other subway ads and reading the article, it was probably humorous in a small way.
By the way, Americans don't hate French. Just poking fun. Hate is a very strong word, besides it would take a lot more than the Iraq Liberation/War to make us forget about the Statue of Liberty. We just think they are on one of those strange steaks, like the time they went fascist, you konw. It won't last, we'll be on good terms eventually, I am sure.
Hey, when can I get this sandwich? I tried their Chicken Parm., man did it suck. Wheh !! No I mean really, I thought I might vomit. Needless to say I won't buy that again.
As for lack of American taste, I have to admit Subway does kinda suck, McDonalds sucks too. Pizza Hut is awful. Yeh, you are probably right.
Try this one: http://www.tedrall.com/longarticle_011.htm
Only for you, here is one part of a Roosevelt letter to Churchill:
"I am more and more of the opinion that we should consider France as a militarily-occupied nation and governed by British and American generals...We would keep 90% of the [Vichy] mayors and a large percentage of the lesser bureaucrats of the cities and departments. But the important posts would remain the responsibility of the military commander, American and British. This will last between six months and a year...Perhaps [General Charles] de Gaulle can become governor of Madagascar."
Enjoy the rest. Also, check out this biography of a Vichy offical: http://africanhistory.about.com/library/prm/bldoubledealer1.htm one more part for you:
"It is also probable that Roosevelt saw in Darlan the ideal pawn for his postwar plans for France--a country for which the president had low regard. He not only favored stripping the French of their sprawling overseas empire but intended to carve up the nation, significantly reducing its area, to deny France any part in the eventual peace settlement, membership in the United Nations, or role in the postwar occupation of Germany. Darlan evidently struck Roosevelt as a malleable puppet whom he could use to further his ideas for postwar France."
I didn't know teaching you a bit of history was "nationalism";-) your statement that your beloved US of A only provides unconditional help throughout the world is a day dream dude. As any good country, the US does things for self interest.
Corporations side with neither left nor right.
Lunchmeat: "capitalism has no politics. Corporations side with neither left nor right. They side with the almighty dollar -- YOUR dollar."
Oh really? Economics is not entangled with politics?
---
Not economics. Please see above: "Corporations side with neither left nor right."
And let's not talk about whether or not corporations pay taxes. We'll save that for another time.
East-West Dialogues
East-West Dialogue: Rex & I, September 10, 2005
This morning, Rex and I had a long discussion which started with the Milton Paradise Lost Thread.
http://thebookforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2714
Rex has given permission for me to edit and post our discussion here.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Me:
Rex, you are immersing yourself in the study of Milton and Cromwell, and many other writings which are outside of Chinese cultural heritage and tradition. Do you perceive within yourself something which you see as uniquely Chinese culture/thinking/feeling which is then somehow changed when you digest all this western literature/history/philosophy? I mean, are you different in any way now that you study such things, than if you had never pursued such studies? I am asking if you sense or perceive a change within yourself, of any kind, as a result of deep exposure to these topics/studies
Rex_Yuan:
I sense no change within myself.
Me:
I was raised with no religion. College exposed me to the "100 great books" (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc) and that changed me very much.
Then, I became Greek/Russian orthodox christian in my 20's, and spent time in monasteries, and that again changed me. In my forties, I studied Zen and Hinduism and many other religions, and that changed me.
Rex_Yuan:
My thought or my way of thinking, is typically Chinese. And I don't think I will change in the future. The Chinese culture is such one that can enclose anything, accept anything "good." that is basically beneficial to the human kind in general.
Me:
That is a curious statement. If I read into it, or read it differently, it seems to be saying that you are resistant to the possibility of change (just my guess... conjecture), no offence intended; just being my usual analytical self.
Rex_Yuan:
No resisting, just because by comparison between the western culture and the Chinese traditional one.
Me:
You see, I have learned or recognized that I may change drastically during my lifetime. So, I accept this possibility. In my 20's I was convinced that ancient Indian and Chinese writings were nonsense, and now I am of an entirely different opinion. I have come, in my lifetime, to see much that is contemptible about my country and culture, and my ancestors
Rex_Yuan:
The more I read, the more I respect my own culture. Do you find something different from the western culture and that from China in the development from the most ancient time up to now?
Me:
I have seen statements made with regard to Japanese/Chinese culture/art, which are striking, in contrast to Western culture/art.
For example D.T. Suzuki contrasts a poem by Tennyson with an haiku by Basho in a most astounding manner. Suzuki demonstrates that Tennyson's poem "I plucked a flower from the crannied wall" is paradigmatic of destructive western analytical thinking. The Western thinker knows what it WAS (after destroying it in the analytical process). The flower wilts in Tennyson’s hand is wilting as he philosophizes about it. Whereas Basho simply observes the blue flower, the Nazuna, by a wall, and leaves it undisturbed. Basho does not dissect and destroy, but rather merges subjectively with his surroundings. And here is another observation regarding European paintings, where the person, the face, takes up most of the canvas, and nature is in the distance, very small. By contrast, Japanese paintings have people as very small, in the background, and the bulk of the canvas is the mountains, nature.
Me: Say... listen... I am serious... this discussion we are having is very good... give me your permission to edit it and post it at the forum. Other readers may become interested and join in.
Rex_Yuan:
Ok . Yes, you have my permission to post our dialogue.
Me:
One major thing we can offer on the Internet, is a dialogue between cultures.... seriously! You are a most respected representative of China, doing advanced studies in English, in literature.... and you live near the nation's capitol. This shall give a wonderful opportunity to post regarding D.T. Suzuki's analysis of Tennyson vs. Basho; West vs East
Rex_Yuan:
I would do anything beneficial to the human kind.
Me:
Yes, in another of our conversations, some months ago, I remember you expressing your humanitarian desire to help society at large
This desire of yours, to do good, is most commendable. It was Gandhi who said, "We must ourselves become that very change which we desire to see in the world." by sharing this dialogue of ours, we give others the opportunity to join in, and to set them thinking along the same lines, of how we as individuals might help the world at large.
Rex_Yuan:
The real spirit of Chinese traditional culture (not the modern one which is changed greatly by the influence from abroad)is by doing good to everyone else that the giver receives real happiness. I found that the Chinese development of thinking is a history of interpreting what has been said by the ancestor. While in the west, it is one that the offspring overturn their ancestors. This is the fundamental reason why I said to you that I don't think I will change. i.e., Harmony or Conflict, that is the title of my thesis Chinese culture sees everything as a whole, (harmony); The West one sees human kind split from nature, from others (conflict). Descartes said "I think, so I exist." He actually put himself detached (or alienated) from the world around him. Being detached creates conflicting state of existing.
My Chinese screen name in MSN can be translated as "The highest good is like water. The heaven and earth exist long." I took the name from “The Way of the Tao” by Lao Tse or Laotzu. Water benefits all the other creatures (things, matters), but will not compete with them. Heaven and earth foster, or provide materials nourishing not themselves, so they exist long.
Me:
Wu-Wei, action through non-action
Rex_Yuan:
So when I say I don't think I will change, I am serious and the conclusion is derived from fundamental comparison between two cultures and I feel so lucky to be brought up in so great a culture, and now (not too late) to know something concerning its real essence. After my realizing this, I became happier. The more I know about it; the happier I am. I accept the Chinese culture, because I don't want to refuse happiness. tranquility, happiness
that is something Irving Babbitt, the humanist or neo-humanist found.
Emerson said that human kind has ridden on a horse and he sways from one side to the other, but never stay in the middle. Confucianism emphasizes the importance of the "Golden-Mean", which is a term said by Aristotle. But Babbitt thought though the Greeks produced something really great, they didn't make a good balance between diversity and unity. So Socrates was put to death. Then the last hope died.
Me:
Yes the ancient Greeks and Romans spoke much of a mean between extremes
Rex_Yuan:
Hegel announced that romanticism is the ending of art. The philosophy of modern western countries especially in the America, is in a confusion. or too diversified.
Me:
Hegel is very important, and unique... I wrote my senior paper on Hegel, and it is at my website
Rex_Yuan:
"From the extremes the middle always looks like another extreme."
Me:
The synthesis between thesis and antithesis becomes a thesis to repeat the cycle
Rex_Yuan:
Hegel is a genius and very knowledgeable. But he sees things in too simplified a fashion.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Thank you, Rex, for bringing this fascinating converstion to our attention. I (for one) will be reading with interest.
StillILearn
I have found a great wealth of information in the search engines regarding Milton and Calvinism and Arminianism and Cromwell.
And I shall be posting shortly in this thread regarding a book I have in front of me by Erich Fromm, D.T. Suzuki, and Richard De martino entitled Zen and Psychoanalysis. It is the opening pages of this book which count Suzuki's analysis of the differences between Basho's Haiku and Tennyson's poem, each regarding a flower.
I have also succeeded in locating, on my shelves, my copy of Nancy Wilson Ross' World of Zen - East/West Anthology
Just yesterday I learned that the actor, Bob Denver, who portrayed Maynard G. Krebbs in the Dobie Gillis Show has passed away. I mention his character, because he portrayed a beatnik in a show created just at the end of the beatnik era and just prior to the beginning of the hippy era. And I mention beatniks because Alan Watts and D.T. Suzuki were possibly the first to write extensively about Zen for the western audience, and such popular writings had many influences in popular writing and culture, e.g. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Pirsig, which has little to do with Zen per se (and much to do with Platonic dialectic), but much to do with the influence of Zen on our thinking.
namuamituofo
The Master of Silence
I am going to recount here, and ancient Zen story which is related in The World of Zen - an East/West Anthology, edited by Nancy Wilson Ross.
My reason for bringing this story up in detail is that, for me, it illustrates in a wonderful fashion, how the reader may find a meaning which the author never even dreamed of.
A monk called himself the Master of Silence He was actually a fraud and had no genuine understanding. To sell his humbug Zen, he had two eloquent attendant monks to answer questions for him; but he himself never uttered a word, as if to show his inscrutable "Silent Zen". One day, during the absence of his two attendants, a pilgrim monk came to him and asked: "Master, what is the Buddha?" Not knowing what to do or to answer, in his confusion he could only look desperately around in all directions - east and west, here and there - for his missing attendants. The pilgrim monk apparently satisfied, then asked him: "What is the Dharma?" He could not answer this question either, so he first looked up at the ceiling and then down at the floor, calling for help from heaven and hell. Again the monk asked: "What is the Sangha?" Now, the "Master of Silence" could do nothing but close his eyes. Finally, the monk asked: "What is blessing?" In desperation, the "Master of Silence" helplessly spread his hands to the questioner as a sign of surrender. But the pilgrim monk was very pleased and satisfied with this interview. He left the "Master" and set out again on his journey. On the road, the pilgrim monk happened to meet the very two attendants of the "master of silence" who had been absent, but were now returning. The monk pilgrim began telling them enthusiastically about what an enlightened being this "Master of Silence" was. He said: "I asked him what Buddha is. He immediately turned his face to the east and then to the west, implying that human beings are always looking for Buddha here and there, but actually Buddha is not to be found either in the east or in the west. I then asked him what the Dharma is. In answer to this question he looked up and down, meaning that the truth of Dharma is totality or equality, there being no discrimination between high and low, while both purity and impurity can be found therein. In answering my question as to what the Sangha was, he simply closed his eyes and said nothing. That was a clue to the famous saying:
If one can close his eyes and sleep soundly in the deep recesses of the cloudy mountains, He is then a great monk.
Finally, in answering my last question, ' What is the blessing?" he stretched out his arms and showed both his hands to me. This implied that he was stretching out his helping hands to guide sentient beings with his blessings. Oh, what an enlightened Zen Master! How profound is his teaching!
When the attendant monks returned, the "Master of Silence" scolded them thus: "Where have you been all this time? A while ago I was embarrassed to death, and almost ruined, by an inquisitive pilgrim!"
+++++
We see in this ancient Zen story and excellent example of eisagesis, where the reader "reads into" the work or act something which the author of the work never imagined.
Often, one word, and one shade of meaning, can make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD, quite literally, in that it suggests an entire moral/ethical/salvific/theological world which IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT from that causal world suggested by some other, slightly different shade of meaning.
I was once discussing certain fine theological points with someone during a long train ride. Finally I pointed to the doors of the train, which were across from our seats. There was a sign on those doors which said "Do not lean on THESE DOORS." I pointed out that if this train car were discovered by archeologists thousands of years from now, they might very well translate that sign and assume that it meant "do not lean on THESE DOORS (because there are OTHER DOORS, elsewhere, upon which you MAY LEAN)". Then such future theologians/archeologists would go on a great quest for the mythical doors upon which LEANING WAS PERMITTED.
__________________
Notice how J.D. Salinger capitalized upon various "eastern" notions such as "reincarnation" and "prayer of the heart" (from the Philokalia), in the short story Teddy about the prodigy child who was a wise man, reincarnated, and in Franny and Zooey where Zooey is so beguiled by the Russian Way of the Pilgrim which instructs about prayer of the heart. And Salinger was writing these things around the 1950s, when Alan Watts was influencing the west with popularized writings about Zen.
I believe that the writings of Alan Watts and Christmas Humphries, in Great Britain, and D.T. Suzuki (Japan), who collaborated with one another, had an impact and influence upon western culture and literature and art.
It is curious that Alan Watts described himself as "a spiritual entertainer."
He was certainly gifted at writing and producing books and lectures which held great appear for the general reading public.
People in the West, perhaps bored, perhaps dissatisfied, turned to the East and extracted or abstracted certain elements which they characterize with some term, like Zen, and produce a caricature of that export. One day, that caricature becomes an episode in the Simpsons, with Bart, taking zen-like lessons from a Chinese restaurateur on the proper ninja gestures for tossing menus under doors. That episode is a take-off or spoof on a movie, The Karate Kid where a young Caucasian boy takes lessons from the wise old Asian man who happened to be a master of martial arts.
So, Rex, I wonder if, in Asia, there are pockets of bored and discontent people who create and then act out, caricatures of Gatsby or William F. Buckley, Jr. or some equally exotic Western personality.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Ell:
I find this topic quite fascinating but feel ill-equipped to contribute in a scholarly way. What I offer is from personal experience ony. I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion.
Quote:
Me:
Rex, you are immersing yourself in the study of Milton and Cromwell, and many other writings which are outside of Chinese cultural heritage and tradition. Do you perceive within yourself something which you see as uniquely Chinese culture/thinking/feeling which is then somehow changed when you digest all this western literature/history/philosophy? I mean, are you different in any way now that you study such things, than if you had never pursued such studies? I am asking if you sense or perceive a change within yourself, of any kind, as a result of deep exposure to these topics/studies
Rex_Yuan:
I sense no change within myself.
Me:
I was raised with no religion. College exposed me to the "100 great books" (Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc) and that changed me very much.
Then, I became Greek/Russian orthodox christian in my 20's, and spent time in monasteries, and that again changed me. In my forties, I studied Zen and Hinduism and many other religions, and that changed me.
Rex_Yuan:
My thought or my way of thinking, is typically Chinese. And I don't think I will change in the future. The Chinese culture is such one that can enclose anything, accept anything "good." that is basically beneficial to the human kind in general.
Me:
That is a curious statement. If I read into it, or read it differently, it seems to be saying that you are resistant to the possibility of change (just my guess... conjecture), no offense intended; just being my usual analytical self.
Rex_Yuan:
No resisting, just because by comparison between the western culture and the Chinese traditional one.
I think I understand what Rex-Yuan means when he says he senses no change within himself. It is not a matter of resisting change, but of embracing that which you find worthwhile. Or as he put it, "The Chinese culture is one that can enclose anything, accept anything 'good' that is basically beneficial to the human kind". Hence, new or different ideas don't 'change' you in the western sense, they merely become part of your totality.
As I stated earlier, this East-West dialogue is quite fascinating to me because at a young age I was raised by my Confucius-scholar grandfather. Later, I was sent to a Protestant Sunday school, attended both regular public school and Chinese school, and was indoctrinated in all things western by an aunt who thought we should all 'blend in' (hah!). At any rate, l never thought I needed to choose one way of thinking over another (change). In the course of my life, I've been exposed to many different ideas as you have, but rather than think I've 'changed', I think of it more like a progression and journey of the same person. Everything blends and becomes the sum total of what I am today.
I find this topic quite fascinating but feel ill-equipped to contribute in a scholarly way. What I offer is from personal experience only. I hope I'm not intruding on your discussion.
Ell, you stole the words right out of my mouth, though you managed to arrange them in a much more elegant and graceful manner.
I'll be reading this thread with much interest, though I'm not sure how much i can contribute, being so obviously outclassed, intellectually.
I was born in India, but came to England when I was 5, so the whole east/west dialogue resonates with me. Since there wasn't anyone to show me the way, i 'discovered' reading and learning by myself and began to expose myself to different ideas at a young age. When I realized that these ideas clashed with the thinking of the people around me, i would once again hit the books and bug everyone until they would answer my questions. I cannot say that my thinking is completely western or eastern, its an amalgamation of not just my cultural heritage but also of my life experiences.
At the same time though, your point about change is very valid, because the more you experience or immerse yourself in other ideologies/ways of thinking the more you understand people and because you are understanding someone better, your response to them is going to change.
What i do find interesting though, is that the more literature I read, both western and indian, the more parallels and similarities I see.
I hope this post makes even half the sense it did in my head
__________________
"I've developed a new philosophy... I only dread one day at a time" - Charles Shultz
Eli: thaks for your post. I was quite impressed with your quote from Pynchon about our ignorance having "a shape and contours". I am anxious to see his book of short stories one day.
Gem: As I read your post, I am thinking of Sarvapali Radhakrishnan. I have a large paperback here filled with essays that people have written about Radhakrisnan's life and works. SR was truly a giant with one leg firmly in the East and the other firmly in the West.
(I shall be adding more to this post presently..)
I am tempted just now to get up and find my book on SR. But, instead, I have been meaning to add to this thread some things in my mind concerning the life and career of Alan Watts. Watts wrote his own autobiography, In My Own Way. After Watts death, Monica Furlong wrote a biography of him entitled Zen Effects. She took her title from a term coined in nuclear physics. She explains in her Preface: In advanced particle physics some remarkable phenomena occur when two particles bearing opposite charges are forced to collide. Some of these events can be explained by standard theory, but others - zen effects - cannot be explained in terms of any known processes.
Watts autobiography, naturally, tells nothing of his last years. Watt's paints a picture of himself that is somewhat flattering, revealing nothing which might diminish our esteem for him.
Zen Effects paints a more accurate picture of a man caught in an economic and social vice, who drank a quart of vodka a day to keep himself going.
Watts started as an ordained Anglican minister married to a wife who had no idea, initially, of Watts secret side.
Watts had experience some bizarre relationships in a private boys school which left him jaded in his appetites. Watts asked his wife to join him in a menage au toi with another man. She could not understand his behavior. She was confused and distressed and sought the counsel of a bishop.
Watts became disillusioned with Christianity, resigned from the ministry, and turned to Buddhism.
I have a paperback copy of one of his early books, where he was still passionately preoccupied with criticizing Christianity and justifying his change to himself and to the world.
By mid-life, Watts was under the pressure of backbreaking alimony payments from several divorces, and his only means of income was to write and lecture. And they only way he could cope with everything was heavy drinking.
There are still some radio station which play his taped lectures once or twice a week.
Alan Watts described himself as "a spiritual entertainer."
A person such as Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan has very different reasons than someone like Alan Watts for keeps a foot in the East and a foot in the West.
We each have our special reasons why we do the things we do. Sometimes they are of our own choosing. For others, there is no choice.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unraveling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
TIMECUBE
What is Zen?
I'm very glad you asked that excellent question, "What is Zen?"
Perhaps long before the 6th. century B.C.E. (Before the Christian Era), which was the century of Siddhartha Gautama, the historical figure known as The Buddha, in India, in the Sanskrit language, the language of the sacred Hindu Vedas, there was a word, dyana used to describe a form of concentration or meditation.
Now, it is from that word dyana that, centuries later, and a continent away, we finally arrive at the word zen. We shall see that the migration of dyana to become zen is a gradual eastward journey, to the Land of the Rising Sun, Japan, by way of China.
That journey started with Bodhidharma who brought dyana to China, where it became known as chan (because they couldn't pronounce dyan and we all know that the Chinese talk funny). Many centuries later, someone brought chan to Japan, where they pronounced it zen (because they couldn't say chan and we all know that Japanese talk funny.)
I cant let you go away without adding some archeology to all this.
In ancient India, there are various representations, carvings and engravings of someone seated with crossed legs, erect posture, folded hands, and closed eyes. Now, who or what do you suppose that figure represents?
I thought I would be very clever, just now, and search on Siva "Lord of the Beasts" archeologists. Google returned only one browser page, which was one of mine, written 8/5/99.
I have been searching just now for a picture to show you regarding that ancient seal discovered, showing a figure in meditation.
http://www.jainsamaj.org/literature/harappa-150104.htm
One may study the engraved seal from Mohenjo-Daro (Cambridge Hist. of India, 1953, Pl. XXIII) of the third millennium B.C. Rudra (Pasupati) Mahadeva seated in meditation in the midst of mortals such as men, animals such as rhinoceros, buffalo, tiger, elephant, antelopes, birds and fish and exhibiting the peniserectum (Urdhva-etas) pose standing for the upward force of creative activity. The iconography of the God noticed in the Mohenjo-Daro seal is fully explained by the following Riks from the Rig Veda:-
1. "Brahma among gods, leader of the poets, Rishi of sages, buffalo among animals, hawk among birds, axe among weapons, over the sieve goes Soma singing."
2. "The thrice-bent bull goes on roaring-The Great God has completely entered the mortals."
3. "Rudra is the lord of creatures."
Folks, it took me a while, but here is a photo of that ancient seal:
http://www.harappa.com/indus/33.html
According to Ninian Smart, Professor of Comparative World Religions, it is a toss-up between Jain and Saivite worship as to which is the more ancient continuously practiced religion.
Now, Mahavira, the 24th Jain Tirthankara was a contemporary of Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha (around 600 B.C.E.). I believe that Zarathustra dates also to around 600 B.C.E in Persia.
By around 3500 B.C.E. in the Harrapan civilization, archeologists find brick platforms which it is assumed were used for Yajna fire sacrifice. And the discovery of the famous "Siva-Pasupati" (Lord of the Beasts) Seal indicates Saivism as well as the practice of Yogic.
At any rate, we see a lotus position meditative figure in artistic depictions of Siva, Mahavaira, and Buddha.
It is very interesting to note that, in the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis, there is an account of how Patriarch Abraham sacrificed several different animals, split them in half, arranged their halves in a row (with a path through the middle), and then sat all day in a meditative state. When he was in what sounds like a trance, then God appeared as a fire which passed along the path between the animal halves, through the middle of the sacrifice.
We may see the actual description of Abraham's meditative trance and vision
in Genesis 15:7-21 (King James Version)
7And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8And he said, LORD God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.
10And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.
11And when the fowls came down upon the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
....
17And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
We scholarly types love discover grand designs, symmetries and formulas which span millenia and continents and draw everything together into one, to organize it and keep it neat, and render it suitable for multiple choice testing.
And if we cannot discover such patterns, then we create them and impose them on the data, when everyone is looking the other way.
(I shall be adding to this much of Sunday morning, I hope, as I drink my many coffees. And I file ever 10 minutes. So keep your cursor near that refresh button, and, like Ole' Gabby Hayes used to say, "Keep those cards and letters comin' in!")
We may return somewhat to our thread topic, East vs. West by noting a number of things. First, in the Vedas, the words siva and rudra originally mean simple gentle and harsh. Later, Shiva and Rudra become personified as deities.
You may read about Siva and Rudra here:
http://www.mythfolklore.net/india/en...edia/rudra.htm
where Rudra is 'A howler or roarer; terrible.'
Now, it would be most convenient if we could show that our word CIVIlized is derived from siva (gentle) while our word rude comes from rudra (terrible).
At sometime around the 3rd millennium B.C.E., in India, a nomadic, aggressive, warlike people, light in complexion, began to migrate further and further south into India, to finally meet and merge with the very gentle and meditative, darker complexioned, people of the south. The warlike people admired Rudra, the howler. The gentle, thoughtful people admired Siva, lord of beasts. What took place was a cultural and religious synthesis, as well as some frolicsome intermarriage.
Several years ago, I watched a PBS educational television interview with
Richard Poe, author of Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe?
Richard Poe cites Aristotle's observation that the Greeks are an ideal mean or middle road between the fierce barbarians of the North (the Germanic tribes), and the gentle civilized people of the South (Africa). Aristotle felt that the Greeks combined the best qualities of both extremes of rudra and siva.
We easily see the rudra-siva polarity between Tennyson's destructive poetic analysis of a flower side by side with Basho's gentle haiku of the nazuna:
‘Flower in the crannied wall’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)
FLOWER in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies;—
Hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower—but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
Notice the violence, the aggression. We can almost see the tower of Babel rising, as human nature seeks to reach the very heavens of understanding.
http://www.brightdawn.org/dailydharm...structions.htm
“All around us are many wonderful, beautiful things. Basho, the most famous of all Japanese poets, wrote many poems which were expressions of his life. He saw universal life—the pure life—deeply within himself and in all things around him. One of his well-known poems is:
Yoku mire ba
Nazuna hana saku
Kaki ne kana
Look carefully
The nazuna blooms
Along the fence—Ah!
“The nazuna is a most insignificant, small flower. Unless one looks very carefully, one will not see it. Unless one understands life deeply, what significance can the nazuna have? Wild flowers bloom everywhere. What of them? Perhaps Basho had walked along that fence many times and had been totally unaware of that small, white flower until he saw it that particular morning. It was blooming with every petal, every leaf. How beautiful! When the sun comes, the nazuna opens up one-hundred percent. How about me? Am I living like the nazuna? I have so many complaints—no inspiration. But look at this small, insignificant wild flower. No one looks at it; no one praises it. However, it lives fully. Basho was inspired to live like the nazuna and crystallized his understanding into a 17-syllable haiku poem. Basho received a great lesson from the nazuna and this expanded his awareness.
__________________
A very interesting discussion. I have noted all the books you refer
to but so many, where does one start? Do you think 'The World of Zen - an East/West Anthology, edited by Nancy Wilson Ross' might be little heavy going for a beginner?
__________________
Nighthawk
We've got to live. No matter how many skies have fallen."
- D.H. Lawrence
but some days it's not worth gnawing through the straps.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
But you already know this.
The first Friday night lecture I ever heard at St. John's, in the Fall of my Freshman year, 1967, was given by Eva Brann, and entitled The Student's Problem. It might have been subtitled Poverty Amid Riches.
I still have a printed copy here. Allow me to quote something from it:
There is a sickness, traditionally called melancholy, which is particularly at home in communities of learning such as ours. Its visible form can be seen in the engraving by Durer called Melencolia Prima.
http://medieval.mrugala.net/Enluminu...Melencolie.jpg
Amidst the signs and symbols of liberal arts, especially geometry, sits heavily a winged woman. Her eyes are fixed intently on visions of nothing - she is a figure of "careless desolation" surrounded by undervalued riches. Almost all the older members of this - and any - community of learning, be they teachers or students, are well acquainted with her. So will you be, who are fresh to our enterprise, the later the more devastatingly.
...
Robert Buron, in his Anatomy of Melancholy makes reference to "a melancholy that is the character of mortality", i.e. the knowledge, implied in every feeling that has any urgency about it, that the time of our life is finite. Melancholy... is the sometimes paralyzing and sometimes frenzied dread of "missing out," which comes to those who have had tantalizing intimations of earthly happiness. It is stronger the more remote death is, and so, strongest in the young, for in them every day demands the renunciation of a hundred possible futures for the choice of one actual life.
...
Consequently the opposite of melancholy is riches in poverty, a serene ardor of the sort perfectly described in a Buddhist song of which the translation is as follows:
Well-roofed and pleasant is my little hut,
And screened from winds; - Rain at they will, thou god!
My heart is well composed, my heart is free,
And ardent is my mood. Now rain, god! Rain!
What I am saying, in quoting Eva Brann, is that we are surrounded by such a wealth of things, that we must choose something, we must start somewhere. But if we are so overwhelmed by that wealth that we make no choice, start nowhere, take no first step, then ours is a poverty in the midst of riches.
We must make some choice, and then begin, and do our best. Try to make progress. Perhaps we shall succeed. Perhaps we shall fail. But we must embark upon our journey.
__________________
Due to technical difficulties of posting at TBF, which hangs my browser task during update, I am consolidating my thoughts on one particular thread
Unravelling themes, symbolism and other such literary stuff
at http://toosmallforsupernova.org/unravelling.htm
Sergo:
Too bad I hadn't read all of this thread, but I hope I will some day.
But I have several comments right now, and I would like to post them now.
I think I need to confess that I've never read Milton. Really, I've never read anything serious on psychology, or culture. All my education has been strictly technical - so in no way I could be considered a person able of a serious opinion on cultural or psychological aspects.
After that stated I would like to point that I am sure that the only thing drastically wrong is antagonizing of one culture against another, one type of psychology against another, and commenting to that effect that one culture/psychology is destructive, and another is essentially good and never failing. I am sure that there are/were/will be people in both Western and Eastern cultures who misunderstand nature of their native culture and misuse it. That doesn't necessary mean that one culture is essentially wrong, and another - essentially right.
Thank you for attention, please forgive my unprofessional approach.
Currently Reading: Thomas Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow
Destructive is not necessarily a negative criticism.
The Hindu concept of god is a trinity of creation-preservation-destruction.
Some societies are war-like and see their colonial aggression in a positive light. Other societies lean more towards the extreme of pacifism and non-violence.
In the grand scheme of things, well lets take our own physical body and its cellular biology. We see creation, preservation and destruction at work on a daily basis. Our blood contains white cells which attack and devour things on a continuously. We see dead skin shed in the form of dandruff or scabs. A fertilized egg cell is totipotent in the sense that it has the potential to differentiate into any conceivable cell, muscle, nerve, skeletal, etc. A muscle or nerve (nerve cells can reach a length of several feet, an that is one cell) are so specialized that they can never again undergo division and reproduction. Their mode is a mode of preservation.
Socrates, in Plato's dialogues, speaks several times of misology, which means, basically, a hatred for discussion and dialogue. Socrates goes on to say that misology is always a symptom of misanthropy, which means a dislike of other people.
The discussion about east and west has been going on for many decades now, among people such as D.T. Suzuki, Erich Fromm, Alan Watts, and many many others.
It is said that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Rabbi Kook was the first Ashkanazie chief Rabbi ever to be appointed for Jerusalem. He spoke of a dialogue which extends over centuries. He points to the 3rd chapter of Malachi (which is the last book of the Old Testament) where it says, "Those who fear God converse with one another. God listens, and it is written in a book."
Rabbi Kook raises the question, "Who are these people who converse with one another." Kook points out that we who are living may raise a question, and then seek for the answer in the writings of those long dead.
St. John's and the "Great Books Program" may be seen as an ongoing dialogue of "the dead poets" variety.
I think the most important thing, perhaps, is to find reasons to keep talking, keep reading, keep learning, keep growing, and not to look for reasons to be fearful and fall silent.
Suppose all those little cells in our body could converse with one another, in a dialogue, in their microcosm world. Suppose one of them were to say, "We are not merely individuals. We are part of a greater being which we cannot perceive. The reproductive cells must not boast of their productivity and denigrate the phagocytes. The creation-preservation-destruction which we see in our midst is not to be judged as good or evil, right or wrong, better or worse, but is a harmony which is consecrated to a grander goal than any of us as individuals can perceive."
What might all the other cells say or do in response to the speech of this one philosopher cell. Would they vote to ostracize their philosopher cell, like Aristeides the Just? Would they give the philosopher cell poison hemlock to drink? Would they crucify the philosopher cell?
We are all dimly aware that, somehow, there are palpable differences between the North and the South, the East and the West, and various nationalities.
Consider the following joke:
Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French, the mechanics are German, the lovers are Italian and it's all organized by the Swiss.
Hell is where the police are German, the cooks are English, the mechanics are French, the lovers are Swiss, and it's all organized by the Italians.
Now, why is it that we laugh at that joke? I will tell you why I think that we laugh. We laugh because we have preconceived stereotypical notions of the German character, the French character, the Italian character and the Swiss character.
Of course, no generalization is worth a damn (including this one.)
Most will agree that war is bad. Patton even said that "war is hell". And yet, our aviation and rocket technology would not be what it is today without the impetus of two world wars to drive research.
When we acknowledge the environmental problems which threaten the very future of life on earth, we are confessing the destructive and aggressive aspects of the industrial revolution and colonization.
Consider this one excerpt from Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow".
I see this passage as one of the strongest most controversial criticisms of European colonial aggression that I have ever read. Does anyone else see in this passage a rhetoric which censures destruction and aggression? And yet, Pynchon buries it in the midst of what some might deem "a dirty book." If it were in some different context, lets say, the front page of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, I dare say it would raise more than a few eyebrows.
This is a literary forum, and I am currently reading Pynchon, according to my profile, so it cannot be too out of place to interject this passage.
http://thebookforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7594
A generation earlier, the declining number of live Herero births was a topic of medical interest throughout southern Africa. The whites looked on as anxiously as they would have at an outbreak of rinderpest among the cattle. How provoking, to watch one's subject population dwindling away like this, year after year. What's a colony without its dusky natives? Where's the fun if they're all going to die off? Just a big hunk of desert, no more maids, no field-hands, no laborers for the construction of the mining -- wait, wait a minute there, yes, it's Karl Marx, that sly old racist skipping away with his teeth together and his eyebrows up trying to make believe it's nothing but Cheap Labor and Overseas Markets....
Oh, no. Colonies are much, much more. Colonies are the outhouses of the European soul, where a fellow can let his pants down and relax, enjoy the smell of his own waste. Where he can fall on his slender prey roaring as loud as he feels like, and guzzle her blood with open joy. Eh? Where he can just wallow and rut and let himself go in a softness, a receptive darkness of limbs, of hair as woolly as the hair on his own forbidden groin. Where the poppy, and cannabis and coca grow full and green, and not to the colors and style of death, as do ergot and agaric, the blight and fungus native to Europe. Christian Europe was always death, Karl, death and repression. Out and down in the colonies, life can be indulged, life and sensuality in all its forms, with no harm done to the Metropolis, nothing to soil those cathedrals, white marble statues, noble thoughts . . . . No word ever gets back. The silences down here are vast enough to absorb all behavior, no matter how dirty, how animal it gets . . . . "
May We Be Inscribed in the Book of Life
In the final book of the Old Testament, Malachi, it says something like "The righteous converse with one another, God listens, and it is written in a book." Chief rabbi Kook of Israel (the first Ashkenazi to hold that position) explains how those separated by centuries may converse, in the sense that one reads the others writings, and comments (rather like a seminar), making a lively book.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Hillary's Wonky Prose
New Yorker Magazine Bashes Hillary
The Political Scene
THE CHOICE
The New Yorker
Jan 28, 2008
Page 26
- by George Packer
I commented on the above article:
I am not a very political person, but I know what I despise.
I consider it a cheap shot to feature an illustration of Hillary Clinton's backside, with a sly expression on her face as she glances over her shoulder.
The article actually mentions both strengths and weaknesses of Hillary and Barack, yet the general tenor of the article is to bash Hillary.
All the candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee), are fine people who have both strengths and weaknesses and have worked very hard to get where they are. The only "flaw" that they all share in common is that there can be only one winner. That is no reason to bash them, or take cheap shots. If you are curious why I cite Huckabee as an exception, you can see my blog of several weeks ago.
The opening paragraph of the article is kind of a cheap shot, mentioning the apartment which Bill and Hillary took together in New Haven, for seventy-five dollars a month, in 1971. Why not have an article describing the first time each candidate copped a feel, or got to second base?
We are all human beings. We all have a gluteous maximus. We all have an adolescence which includes sexual experiences.
The second paragraph of this article informs us that Greg Craig, who used to be a close friend of the Clintons, is now an Obama supporter, has been "inspired" by Obama, and doubts that Hillary could inspire him. Does this mean that Obama has inspired throngs, hordes, masses of people, and Hillary has never inspired anyone?
The article, as well as the caption beneath Hillary's butt cartoon, suggests that Hillary cares only about advancing her own personal career goals, and cares nothing about transforming society. I rather suspect that each and every candidate sees the presidency as a fabulous career goal achievement.
What does it really mean to "inspire" or to "transform society." Please list the times in history when society was transformed single-handed by one politician.
A young teenage relative of mine tells me that my blogs are too boring to read. Well, I mention booty and shacking up, which are two topics of perennial fascination.
(some hours later) OK, back to the New Yorker Article:
On page 32, we read that Hillary Clinton "filled yellow legal pads with incorrigibly wonky prose, in 'round, schoolgirlish handwriting."
What is "wonky" prose, anyway? I blogged a few weeks ago about all those letters that Hillary wrote during college to an English professor. There are actually photocopies of her handwriting and samples of her young adult prose. If you browse the above link, on page two, you will see her round schoolgirl handwriting when she was actually a schoolgirl. Looks better than my handwriting.
I feel its time to Google on "wonky". So, in all fairness, let us compare the handwriting and prose of all the candidates. We here them all speaking extemporaneous prose during debates, and I find nothing particularly egregious about anyone's prose. All candidates seem well spoken. The only person I can think of that does not always appear well-spoken is Bush, but, that is water under the proverbial bridge (hey, is this sentence wonky?)
A Google search on "wonky prose" example, yields 97 hits, among which are:
http://markcoatney.com/
What Does George Packer Know About Hillary Clinton's Book, Anyway?
January 26, 2008
George Packer: Fine, smart writer. But I'm curious about a section in an otherwise nice New Yorker piece this week about the contrasting political styles of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Take a look:
...
A search on WONKY DEFINITION yields:
wonky adj. Chiefly British. , -kier , -kiest . Shaky; feeble. Wrong; awry. [Probably alteration of dialectal wanky , alteration of wankle
.....
Let's see what literature professor Peavoy (above PHOTOCOPIES link) has to say about Hillary's schoolgirl prose:
Ms. Rodham's letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation. Ever the pleaser, she frequently begins them with an apology that it had taken her so long to respond. She praises Mr. Peavoy's missives while disparaging her own ("my usual drivel") and signs off with a simple "Hillary," except for the occasional "H" or "Me."
As one would expect of letters written during college, Ms. Rodham's letters display an evolution in sophistication, viewpoint and intellectual focus. One existential theme that recurs throughout is that Ms. Rodham views herself as an "actor," meaning a student activist committed to a life of civic action, which she contrasts with Mr. Peavoy, who, in her view, is more of an outside critic, or "reactor."
"Are you satisfied with the part you have cast yourself in?" she asks Mr. Peavoy in April 1966. "It seems that you have decided to become a reactor rather than actor — everything around will determine your life."
...
In conclusion, may I say: My dear Hillary, it seems that your butt, your prose and your penmanship are all under attack! Is there nothing sacred?
The Political Scene
THE CHOICE
The New Yorker
Jan 28, 2008
Page 26
- by George Packer
I commented on the above article:
I am not a very political person, but I know what I despise.
I consider it a cheap shot to feature an illustration of Hillary Clinton's backside, with a sly expression on her face as she glances over her shoulder.
The article actually mentions both strengths and weaknesses of Hillary and Barack, yet the general tenor of the article is to bash Hillary.
All the candidates (with the possible exception of Huckabee), are fine people who have both strengths and weaknesses and have worked very hard to get where they are. The only "flaw" that they all share in common is that there can be only one winner. That is no reason to bash them, or take cheap shots. If you are curious why I cite Huckabee as an exception, you can see my blog of several weeks ago.
The opening paragraph of the article is kind of a cheap shot, mentioning the apartment which Bill and Hillary took together in New Haven, for seventy-five dollars a month, in 1971. Why not have an article describing the first time each candidate copped a feel, or got to second base?
We are all human beings. We all have a gluteous maximus. We all have an adolescence which includes sexual experiences.
The second paragraph of this article informs us that Greg Craig, who used to be a close friend of the Clintons, is now an Obama supporter, has been "inspired" by Obama, and doubts that Hillary could inspire him. Does this mean that Obama has inspired throngs, hordes, masses of people, and Hillary has never inspired anyone?
The article, as well as the caption beneath Hillary's butt cartoon, suggests that Hillary cares only about advancing her own personal career goals, and cares nothing about transforming society. I rather suspect that each and every candidate sees the presidency as a fabulous career goal achievement.
What does it really mean to "inspire" or to "transform society." Please list the times in history when society was transformed single-handed by one politician.
A young teenage relative of mine tells me that my blogs are too boring to read. Well, I mention booty and shacking up, which are two topics of perennial fascination.
(some hours later) OK, back to the New Yorker Article:
On page 32, we read that Hillary Clinton "filled yellow legal pads with incorrigibly wonky prose, in 'round, schoolgirlish handwriting."
What is "wonky" prose, anyway? I blogged a few weeks ago about all those letters that Hillary wrote during college to an English professor. There are actually photocopies of her handwriting and samples of her young adult prose. If you browse the above link, on page two, you will see her round schoolgirl handwriting when she was actually a schoolgirl. Looks better than my handwriting.
I feel its time to Google on "wonky". So, in all fairness, let us compare the handwriting and prose of all the candidates. We here them all speaking extemporaneous prose during debates, and I find nothing particularly egregious about anyone's prose. All candidates seem well spoken. The only person I can think of that does not always appear well-spoken is Bush, but, that is water under the proverbial bridge (hey, is this sentence wonky?)
A Google search on "wonky prose" example, yields 97 hits, among which are:
http://markcoatney.com/
What Does George Packer Know About Hillary Clinton's Book, Anyway?
January 26, 2008
George Packer: Fine, smart writer. But I'm curious about a section in an otherwise nice New Yorker piece this week about the contrasting political styles of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Take a look:
...
A search on WONKY DEFINITION yields:
wonky adj. Chiefly British. , -kier , -kiest . Shaky; feeble. Wrong; awry. [Probably alteration of dialectal wanky , alteration of wankle
.....
Let's see what literature professor Peavoy (above PHOTOCOPIES link) has to say about Hillary's schoolgirl prose:
Ms. Rodham's letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation. Ever the pleaser, she frequently begins them with an apology that it had taken her so long to respond. She praises Mr. Peavoy's missives while disparaging her own ("my usual drivel") and signs off with a simple "Hillary," except for the occasional "H" or "Me."
As one would expect of letters written during college, Ms. Rodham's letters display an evolution in sophistication, viewpoint and intellectual focus. One existential theme that recurs throughout is that Ms. Rodham views herself as an "actor," meaning a student activist committed to a life of civic action, which she contrasts with Mr. Peavoy, who, in her view, is more of an outside critic, or "reactor."
"Are you satisfied with the part you have cast yourself in?" she asks Mr. Peavoy in April 1966. "It seems that you have decided to become a reactor rather than actor — everything around will determine your life."
...
In conclusion, may I say: My dear Hillary, it seems that your butt, your prose and your penmanship are all under attack! Is there nothing sacred?
The Devil is in the Details
Originally posted: 18 Sep 2005 09:36 am
My wife is a very devout Roman Catholic. She considered herself a Democrat during most of her adult life, but has now registered as a Republican because she admires President Bush's positions on such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and physician assisted death.
She does have one son who is of draft-able age. She mentioned that she might favor the Democratic candidate, such as Kerry, if his policies would keep more young men out of combat. Our conversation inspired me to ask her a question which is for me potentially fascinating:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a magic crystal ball which allows you to see what the future will be like based upon which candidate wins a presidential election. Suppose you foresee that a very liberal candidate, whose positions or personal beliefs are not to your liking, will successfully bring about many things beneficial to society as a whole, such as solving the health care crisis, balancing the budget, reducing unemployment and greatly reducing military action around the world, but through his liberal policies will legalize gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and physician assisted death. On the other hand, your magic crystal ball shows you that the opposing candidate, a conservative whose beliefs coincide with your own, would forever ban gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and physician assisted death, but would cause an increase in unemployment, inflation, the demise of social welfare benefits, and plunge us into a world war which would cost many lives. Which candidate would you choose then?"
She objected that such situations would never arise; that my example is too extreme.
I replied, "But, you miss the point of our hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. The point is not WHAT might actually happen in the future. The point of the exercise is to help you determine what your values really are if forced to make a tough decision, when you cannot have your cake and eat it too."
There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." Our wisdom and ethical metal is never tested until we are confronted by a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't choice. Ethics is only easy in movies where the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats and mustaches.
Emmanuel Kant offered as a moral rule of thumb that we should never make any person a means to an end, but always strive to make each person an end in itself. Jean-Paul Sartre was brilliant at contriving real life scenarios which truly test these the limits of our character. Sartre describes the dilemma of a young man in war-torn, occupied France during World War II. This young man is the sole support and comfort of his aging mother. He sees his comrades risking their lives to join the underground resistance movement to fight against the monster of fascism and defend the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If our young hero chooses to be patriotic and join his comrades in their noble cause, then he treats his mother as an object, a means to his patriotic end, and her abandonment and suffering becomes a means to a greater end, the end of self-sacrifice to win the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet, if he chooses to be a good son, and remain with his mother, then he treats his comrades and his country as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
What is the answer? What is the rule of thumb or formula to guide us? It becomes as essential and existential as Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham's dilemma when a divine voice commands him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Or, consider the famous "Gauguin Problem" in ethics. The painter, Gauguin, abandons his wife and children, which society sees as something bad, but in so doing, is free to go to Tahiti and become a famous artist, which society sees as something good. So does the good of the result outweigh and justify the evil of the means? You may substitute a scientist in this scenario if you like, who abandons his family responsibilities but succeeds in discovering a cure for cancer and AIDS. In some sense, the success and prosperity of our great American society is founded upon a century of black slavery, the genocide of the native American, and various acts of colonial aggression and oppression in world history. The Pharisees would not take back the pieces of silver from Judas, but the land of the free and the home of the brave can never wash away the historical fact of the blood-money in its coffers which funded its success.
And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue, "Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat" comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux" (let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position, and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good, IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even bound by His own words.
Well, we have possibly uncovered here some sticky wickets. I wish I could be like a magician and pull a rabbit solution out of my top hat, but I have no solution for you; no easy answer. There is a joke in which someone is shown a vision of hell, and he sees a long table at which are seated people with very long spoons bound to their hands, far to long to reach the plate of food set before them, so all are frustrated in their inability to feed themselves, and slowly die of starvation. Then, he is shown a vision of heaven. He sees the SAME long table, and people with long spoons tied to their hands, BUT the difference is that each person dips his spoon into the plate of his neighbor across the table, and then places the food in his neighbor's mouth, so all are fed and satisfied. Sometimes I suspect that right and wrong, good and evil, are the same banquet, with the same utensils, but everything depends on how we choose to deal with the situation; on how we play our hand, the cards which have been dealt to us.
In the independent film, Zentropa, a young, idealistic German-American moves to Germany to help with the reconstruction. He meets a German Catholic priest and asks, "each side in this war prayed to God for victory, believing their cause was right, but BOTH sides cannot possibly be right. How does God judge amongst them?" The priest replied that God does not look to the outward right or wrong of the issues at stake, but to the heart of each individual. The priest quotes the verse from the New Testament about the person who is neither hot nor cold (i.e. has taken up no side or cause), but is merely lukewarm, and those who are lukewarm God spews from his mouth (i.e. rejects).
Once upon a time, a Buddhist monk had just taken his vows, which including a vow never to harm living creatures, and also never to tell a lie.
This newly ordained monk was taking a walk through the woods when, suddenly, he saw a terrified rabbit race by his feet and jump into a thicket of bushes. A moment later, a group of hunters arrive and ask the monk "Did you see a rabbit?" So, what is our poor monk to do? If he betrays the presence of the rabbit hiding in the bush then he harms a living creature but if he tells the hunters that he did not see a rabbit, then he has lied.
A young doctor in a hospice one commented to me, "it is not the hand of cards which you are dealt, but how will you choose to play it."
Epilogue:
I am reminded of a recent conversation with an old college mate of mine who became a physician. I have always perceived him as a model of ethics and compassion. We were discussing the topic of physician assisted death. I argued that a long slow death by removal of feeding tubes and hydration was more cruel and degrading to the patient than a quick death by the administration of a drug overdose. My friend argued that the cessation of feeding and hydration was more ethical, since a doctor is not ethically obligated to extend life artificially when there is no hope of recovery, and that the doctor is simply ceasing all intervention allowing nature to take its course. This is death caused through inaction rather than the overt act of administering an overdose.
I realize that my friend is a devout Protestant Christian and has no notions of karma or rebirth, but it seems to me that the physician who elects to simply pull the plug and stand back is in on some level doing so to avoid the karmic consequences of taking a positive action to hasten death and diminish suffering. Actions cause us to become implicated and involved.
I suppose I would not be a very good doctor, but were I a doctor in such a situation, I would prefer to take upon myself the sin of euthanasia, the sin of action, for the sake of the other, to diminish suffering, rather than choose the sanctity and blamelessness of inaction.
In an odd way, one may see Christ's submission to the authorities, allowing himself to be captured and crucified, as a form of suicide. Presumably, if we foresee our execution, but do not take measures to prevent it or escape it, then we are suicidal in our actions. Socrates is another example of someone who might have escaped his death sentence and survived, but chose to stay and submit to the judgment. Various Cristian theologians assert that Christ BECOMES sin, in that he takes upon himself the sins of all mankind throughout all past present and future.
If this is so, then there is something very Christ-like about someone who would willingly take sin upon themselves for the sake of alleviating the suffering of another.
I am rather pleased with the interpretation that I developed regarding King David, who wrote the 51st Psalm in repentance for his sin against Uriah.
As I see it, on the surface of things, David did nothing wrong TECHNICALLY. As a King, it was his right and duty to direct military battles and send anyone to the front lines whom he saw fit. Once Uriah perished in battle, his wife Bathsheba was now a widow, and there is no sin in marrying a widow. As a King, David is entitled to take many wives. So, where is the sin? The sin lies in the subjective aspect of David's "wickedness of the imagination," in David's hidden agenda, and "malice of forethought." Another King might have performed the same actions, but with a different heart, and there would have been no sin.
There is an old Taoist saying: "When the wrong person undertakes the right means, then the right means yield the wrong results."
There is always a dilemma, a tension, a dissonance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, between willing spirit and weak flesh. Perhaps our dilemma between good and evil is like e. e. cummings "dilemma of flutes:"
"in thy beauty is the dilemma of flutes
thy eyes are the betrayal
of bells comprehended through incense"
- e.e. cummings, "My Love"
My wife is a very devout Roman Catholic. She considered herself a Democrat during most of her adult life, but has now registered as a Republican because she admires President Bush's positions on such controversial issues as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and physician assisted death.
She does have one son who is of draft-able age. She mentioned that she might favor the Democratic candidate, such as Kerry, if his policies would keep more young men out of combat. Our conversation inspired me to ask her a question which is for me potentially fascinating:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you have a magic crystal ball which allows you to see what the future will be like based upon which candidate wins a presidential election. Suppose you foresee that a very liberal candidate, whose positions or personal beliefs are not to your liking, will successfully bring about many things beneficial to society as a whole, such as solving the health care crisis, balancing the budget, reducing unemployment and greatly reducing military action around the world, but through his liberal policies will legalize gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and physician assisted death. On the other hand, your magic crystal ball shows you that the opposing candidate, a conservative whose beliefs coincide with your own, would forever ban gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and physician assisted death, but would cause an increase in unemployment, inflation, the demise of social welfare benefits, and plunge us into a world war which would cost many lives. Which candidate would you choose then?"
She objected that such situations would never arise; that my example is too extreme.
I replied, "But, you miss the point of our hypothetical 'what-if' scenario. The point is not WHAT might actually happen in the future. The point of the exercise is to help you determine what your values really are if forced to make a tough decision, when you cannot have your cake and eat it too."
There is an old saying that "the devil is in the details." Our wisdom and ethical metal is never tested until we are confronted by a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't choice. Ethics is only easy in movies where the good guys all wear white hats and the bad guys all wear black hats and mustaches.
Emmanuel Kant offered as a moral rule of thumb that we should never make any person a means to an end, but always strive to make each person an end in itself. Jean-Paul Sartre was brilliant at contriving real life scenarios which truly test these the limits of our character. Sartre describes the dilemma of a young man in war-torn, occupied France during World War II. This young man is the sole support and comfort of his aging mother. He sees his comrades risking their lives to join the underground resistance movement to fight against the monster of fascism and defend the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. If our young hero chooses to be patriotic and join his comrades in their noble cause, then he treats his mother as an object, a means to his patriotic end, and her abandonment and suffering becomes a means to a greater end, the end of self-sacrifice to win the greatest good for the greatest number. Yet, if he chooses to be a good son, and remain with his mother, then he treats his comrades and his country as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.
What is the answer? What is the rule of thumb or formula to guide us? It becomes as essential and existential as Kierkegaard's analysis of Abraham's dilemma when a divine voice commands him to sacrifice his son Isaac. Or, consider the famous "Gauguin Problem" in ethics. The painter, Gauguin, abandons his wife and children, which society sees as something bad, but in so doing, is free to go to Tahiti and become a famous artist, which society sees as something good. So does the good of the result outweigh and justify the evil of the means? You may substitute a scientist in this scenario if you like, who abandons his family responsibilities but succeeds in discovering a cure for cancer and AIDS. In some sense, the success and prosperity of our great American society is founded upon a century of black slavery, the genocide of the native American, and various acts of colonial aggression and oppression in world history. The Pharisees would not take back the pieces of silver from Judas, but the land of the free and the home of the brave can never wash away the historical fact of the blood-money in its coffers which funded its success.
And the ultimate of all ethical paradoxes from antiquity is Plato's dialogue, "Euthyphro," when Socrates asks whether God loves the Good because of its inherent goodness, or is the Good good simply by fiat, because it happens to be what God likes or commands. And let us not forget that our very word "fiat" comes from the first words of Genesis in Latin vulgate translation: "Fiat lux" (let there be light.) If we say that God loves what is good for its inherent qualities, then we cast a doubt upon God's omnipotence. God is not free to hate what is good. God is not free to lie. This is the position of the Judeo-Christian heritage. If, on the other hand, we take the opposite position, and say that God is so powerful that, by fiat, whatever God proclaims as good, IS good, ipso facto, because of God's endorsement, well then we wind up in the position of Islam, which portrays God as so omnipotent that God may even abrogate His own commandments. Such a God is a capricious God who is not even bound by His own words.
Well, we have possibly uncovered here some sticky wickets. I wish I could be like a magician and pull a rabbit solution out of my top hat, but I have no solution for you; no easy answer. There is a joke in which someone is shown a vision of hell, and he sees a long table at which are seated people with very long spoons bound to their hands, far to long to reach the plate of food set before them, so all are frustrated in their inability to feed themselves, and slowly die of starvation. Then, he is shown a vision of heaven. He sees the SAME long table, and people with long spoons tied to their hands, BUT the difference is that each person dips his spoon into the plate of his neighbor across the table, and then places the food in his neighbor's mouth, so all are fed and satisfied. Sometimes I suspect that right and wrong, good and evil, are the same banquet, with the same utensils, but everything depends on how we choose to deal with the situation; on how we play our hand, the cards which have been dealt to us.
In the independent film, Zentropa, a young, idealistic German-American moves to Germany to help with the reconstruction. He meets a German Catholic priest and asks, "each side in this war prayed to God for victory, believing their cause was right, but BOTH sides cannot possibly be right. How does God judge amongst them?" The priest replied that God does not look to the outward right or wrong of the issues at stake, but to the heart of each individual. The priest quotes the verse from the New Testament about the person who is neither hot nor cold (i.e. has taken up no side or cause), but is merely lukewarm, and those who are lukewarm God spews from his mouth (i.e. rejects).
Once upon a time, a Buddhist monk had just taken his vows, which including a vow never to harm living creatures, and also never to tell a lie.
This newly ordained monk was taking a walk through the woods when, suddenly, he saw a terrified rabbit race by his feet and jump into a thicket of bushes. A moment later, a group of hunters arrive and ask the monk "Did you see a rabbit?" So, what is our poor monk to do? If he betrays the presence of the rabbit hiding in the bush then he harms a living creature but if he tells the hunters that he did not see a rabbit, then he has lied.
A young doctor in a hospice one commented to me, "it is not the hand of cards which you are dealt, but how will you choose to play it."
Epilogue:
I am reminded of a recent conversation with an old college mate of mine who became a physician. I have always perceived him as a model of ethics and compassion. We were discussing the topic of physician assisted death. I argued that a long slow death by removal of feeding tubes and hydration was more cruel and degrading to the patient than a quick death by the administration of a drug overdose. My friend argued that the cessation of feeding and hydration was more ethical, since a doctor is not ethically obligated to extend life artificially when there is no hope of recovery, and that the doctor is simply ceasing all intervention allowing nature to take its course. This is death caused through inaction rather than the overt act of administering an overdose.
I realize that my friend is a devout Protestant Christian and has no notions of karma or rebirth, but it seems to me that the physician who elects to simply pull the plug and stand back is in on some level doing so to avoid the karmic consequences of taking a positive action to hasten death and diminish suffering. Actions cause us to become implicated and involved.
I suppose I would not be a very good doctor, but were I a doctor in such a situation, I would prefer to take upon myself the sin of euthanasia, the sin of action, for the sake of the other, to diminish suffering, rather than choose the sanctity and blamelessness of inaction.
In an odd way, one may see Christ's submission to the authorities, allowing himself to be captured and crucified, as a form of suicide. Presumably, if we foresee our execution, but do not take measures to prevent it or escape it, then we are suicidal in our actions. Socrates is another example of someone who might have escaped his death sentence and survived, but chose to stay and submit to the judgment. Various Cristian theologians assert that Christ BECOMES sin, in that he takes upon himself the sins of all mankind throughout all past present and future.
If this is so, then there is something very Christ-like about someone who would willingly take sin upon themselves for the sake of alleviating the suffering of another.
I am rather pleased with the interpretation that I developed regarding King David, who wrote the 51st Psalm in repentance for his sin against Uriah.
As I see it, on the surface of things, David did nothing wrong TECHNICALLY. As a King, it was his right and duty to direct military battles and send anyone to the front lines whom he saw fit. Once Uriah perished in battle, his wife Bathsheba was now a widow, and there is no sin in marrying a widow. As a King, David is entitled to take many wives. So, where is the sin? The sin lies in the subjective aspect of David's "wickedness of the imagination," in David's hidden agenda, and "malice of forethought." Another King might have performed the same actions, but with a different heart, and there would have been no sin.
There is an old Taoist saying: "When the wrong person undertakes the right means, then the right means yield the wrong results."
There is always a dilemma, a tension, a dissonance between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, between willing spirit and weak flesh. Perhaps our dilemma between good and evil is like e. e. cummings "dilemma of flutes:"
"in thy beauty is the dilemma of flutes
thy eyes are the betrayal
of bells comprehended through incense"
- e.e. cummings, "My Love"
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
I did not end my life in 1990, as planned
In 1990, I was in the 12th. year of a marriage which had become increasingly difficult. The family business had to be sold. My first wife explained that she had once been caught outdoors in a blizzard, and almost froze to death. She said it was a very painless experience of numbness and drowsiness.
I watched a documentary film made by four women who crossed a large section of Antarctica on foot. They had to eat something like 1 lb of fat (butter) per day simply to keep up their body temperature. I guess there is some wisdom in Eskimo blubber cuisine. The going got tough for them, and one person had thoughts of suicide. She knew that all she had to do was wander away from the group while the other slept, and just sit down, and wait to freeze to death.
Anyway, in 1990, we talked about it, but, did not do it.
In 1991, my entire life changed. I separated from my 1st wife, moved, got a totally different kind of job, and met my second wife, who had a 7 yr old son, a 14 yr old daughter, and a dog.
For me, it was like being in the twilight zone, or outer limits, and stepping through some kind of spatio-temporal wormhole-portal-warp. The next 10 years were incredible years for me.
Occasionally, I thought about how I would have missed out on all that, if I had ended it all back in 1990.
I am not going to say that there is never a circumstance where suicide make sense.
I can never remember George Eastman's name! I had to google on Kodak just now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eastman
...
I did read that George Eastman was diagnosed with an incurable disease which would cause a slow painful death. He wrote a note saying, "My work is done" and then shot himself in the head.
Eastman was a brilliant and stable man, and a generous philanthropist.
Oddly, the wikipedia link, above, does not mention his suicide.
Eastman's suicide note is at this link, with many other such notes:
http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying3.html
I watched a documentary film made by four women who crossed a large section of Antarctica on foot. They had to eat something like 1 lb of fat (butter) per day simply to keep up their body temperature. I guess there is some wisdom in Eskimo blubber cuisine. The going got tough for them, and one person had thoughts of suicide. She knew that all she had to do was wander away from the group while the other slept, and just sit down, and wait to freeze to death.
Anyway, in 1990, we talked about it, but, did not do it.
In 1991, my entire life changed. I separated from my 1st wife, moved, got a totally different kind of job, and met my second wife, who had a 7 yr old son, a 14 yr old daughter, and a dog.
For me, it was like being in the twilight zone, or outer limits, and stepping through some kind of spatio-temporal wormhole-portal-warp. The next 10 years were incredible years for me.
Occasionally, I thought about how I would have missed out on all that, if I had ended it all back in 1990.
I am not going to say that there is never a circumstance where suicide make sense.
I can never remember George Eastman's name! I had to google on Kodak just now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eastman
...
I did read that George Eastman was diagnosed with an incurable disease which would cause a slow painful death. He wrote a note saying, "My work is done" and then shot himself in the head.
Eastman was a brilliant and stable man, and a generous philanthropist.
Oddly, the wikipedia link, above, does not mention his suicide.
Eastman's suicide note is at this link, with many other such notes:
http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying3.html
So, You Want a Good Christian President?
Good! I'm glad! You have made a wise choice.
Let's keep those Jews and Mormons and secular humanist agnostics out of the White house!
Now, I spent a number of years studying the Christian religion, and the message of Jesus which I find most outstanding is to "love your enemies and forgive them."
So, if Saddam Hussein was our enemy, we should love him, forgive him, and turn the other cheek. Right? Isn't that what Jesus taught us? Or, am I somehow confused.
So, simple question:
President George Bush (the son, not the father), is a good Christian, who even promotes faith based policies, then, in his 8 years in office, which enemy was it, exactly, that he loved and forgave?
I mean, it certainly wasn't Karla Fey Tucker on death row in Texas. Under the law, the Governor of Texas, Bush, could only have granted a 30 day stay of execution, while an appeal was investigated. But Bush wouldn't even do that! Come on now! Be honest! If Jesus were a governor, and someone on death row asked for a 30 day postponement, what would Jesus have done?
Let's keep those Jews and Mormons and secular humanist agnostics out of the White house!
Now, I spent a number of years studying the Christian religion, and the message of Jesus which I find most outstanding is to "love your enemies and forgive them."
So, if Saddam Hussein was our enemy, we should love him, forgive him, and turn the other cheek. Right? Isn't that what Jesus taught us? Or, am I somehow confused.
So, simple question:
President George Bush (the son, not the father), is a good Christian, who even promotes faith based policies, then, in his 8 years in office, which enemy was it, exactly, that he loved and forgave?
I mean, it certainly wasn't Karla Fey Tucker on death row in Texas. Under the law, the Governor of Texas, Bush, could only have granted a 30 day stay of execution, while an appeal was investigated. But Bush wouldn't even do that! Come on now! Be honest! If Jesus were a governor, and someone on death row asked for a 30 day postponement, what would Jesus have done?
The Convenience of Cafeteria Theology
Protestant denominations in particular are guilty of cafeteria theology, picking and choosing from the Old and New Testament those passages which are convenient to their agenda.
The conservative old-calendarist Greek Orthodox are impressive in their efforts to somehow combine everything in the Old Testament and New Testament into one unified theological vision. To some lesser extent, Roman Catholicism has labored to forge such a unified vision. One may easily verify this by noting how the Philokalia, a collection of Greek monastic writings which spans the 4th century to the 14th century, roughly, has so many references to the Old Testament, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
But, Martin Luther of the 15th century Reformation, latches onto to one obscure passage in the Old Testament Book of Prophet Habbakuk (ch. 2 verse 4), "For the just man shall live by his faith", and inflates it into an entire theology of salvation by faith alone.
Yet, Martin Luther totally ignores the Old Testament lesson where a man, Jephtah, in battle vows to sacrifice the first living being he sees upon return home, if he is victorious. To his horror, his daughter is the first being that he sees. He tells her of his terrible vow, and she FORCES him to keep his vow, since it is better "never to vow at all than to vow and not pay." Now, Martin Luther never stopped to consider that he had voluntarily taken the Augustinian monastic vows of a life time of chastity. Instead Martin Luther devised theological arguments to show that all celibacy was demonic and contrary to God's divine will.
Modern day Protestants, whenever confronted with an inconvenient passage in the Old Testament, will casually dismiss it saying, "Oh, well, that was the OLD LAW, which was done away with by the NEW LAW of Jesus."
I must post this for now, so I do not lose all this typing, and come back to add to it during the day.
The late Kurt Vonnegut illustrated the hypocrisy of American Protestants by pointing out that they are always agitating to have Mose's Ten Commandments on display in public, government buildings, but no one ever suggests erecting some monument to Jesus' Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.
The family members of the late George Wallace are perfect examples of such Protestant hypocrisy. When the man who shot and paralyzed Gov. Wallace was released from prison, they said "Well, of course we forgave him, since that is God's will, but we think he should rot in prison." (ok, not their exact words, but my paraphrase)
As a child, I thought George Wallace was so evil, trying to keep a few black students out of a university, that, when I learned he was shot and paralyzed, I cheered. Good for God! At last, a bastard gets what he deserves in this life. And then, Gov. Wallace, prevented by law from seeking another term in offices, arranges for his WIFE to become governor, so he can continue with his reign of iniquity. And his wife is STRUCK DEAD WITH CANCER, while in office. Hooray for God! Now, Protestant televangelists are anxious to claim that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment to us, but they are hesitant to ascribe the paralysis of a racist biggot, and the death of his puppet wife, as an act of divine justice.
Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. Constitution is amended to FORBID anyone from public office who is affiliated with organized religion, on the grounds that such a person could not represent their constituency in a genuinely unbiased fashion. What do you think that aspiring political candidates would do. I say they would carefully distance themselves from any religious affiliation, and portray themselves as secular humanists.
As it is right now, with Protestant affiliation being so fashionable for candidates, they strive to attend prayer breakfasts in Bible belt regions, and publicly state how Jesus came into their lives as their personal savior, while they were staggering with a hangover down the beach one day, chatting with Billy Graham.
By the way, the only President who REFUSED to have Billy Graham do his thing in the White house was the MOST devout of all the presidents, Jimmy Carter. When asked about this in an interview, Carter explained that Graham is a fine man, but the Whitehouse is not the place for such activities. By the way, the very first president who let Graham in the White house was Truman, and when Truman saw that Graham staged an unauthorized publicity shot out side the White house later, "bending the knee" in prayer with a few of his cronies, Truman became angry and refused to even entertain Graham again.
Postmodernist philosopher Derrida said it all when he said "Forgiveness, if it ever happens at all, takes place in the face of the unforgivable."
Your dog poops on my lawn, and I forgive you? Big deal?
But, forgiving the Nazi holocaust, or the atomic bomb, or the twin towers, or slavery... now THAT is forgiveness, ... IF you can really do it and not just pay lip service to the idea, like the Wallace family.
The conservative old-calendarist Greek Orthodox are impressive in their efforts to somehow combine everything in the Old Testament and New Testament into one unified theological vision. To some lesser extent, Roman Catholicism has labored to forge such a unified vision. One may easily verify this by noting how the Philokalia, a collection of Greek monastic writings which spans the 4th century to the 14th century, roughly, has so many references to the Old Testament, the Prophets, and the Psalms.
But, Martin Luther of the 15th century Reformation, latches onto to one obscure passage in the Old Testament Book of Prophet Habbakuk (ch. 2 verse 4), "For the just man shall live by his faith", and inflates it into an entire theology of salvation by faith alone.
Yet, Martin Luther totally ignores the Old Testament lesson where a man, Jephtah, in battle vows to sacrifice the first living being he sees upon return home, if he is victorious. To his horror, his daughter is the first being that he sees. He tells her of his terrible vow, and she FORCES him to keep his vow, since it is better "never to vow at all than to vow and not pay." Now, Martin Luther never stopped to consider that he had voluntarily taken the Augustinian monastic vows of a life time of chastity. Instead Martin Luther devised theological arguments to show that all celibacy was demonic and contrary to God's divine will.
Modern day Protestants, whenever confronted with an inconvenient passage in the Old Testament, will casually dismiss it saying, "Oh, well, that was the OLD LAW, which was done away with by the NEW LAW of Jesus."
I must post this for now, so I do not lose all this typing, and come back to add to it during the day.
The late Kurt Vonnegut illustrated the hypocrisy of American Protestants by pointing out that they are always agitating to have Mose's Ten Commandments on display in public, government buildings, but no one ever suggests erecting some monument to Jesus' Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount.
The family members of the late George Wallace are perfect examples of such Protestant hypocrisy. When the man who shot and paralyzed Gov. Wallace was released from prison, they said "Well, of course we forgave him, since that is God's will, but we think he should rot in prison." (ok, not their exact words, but my paraphrase)
As a child, I thought George Wallace was so evil, trying to keep a few black students out of a university, that, when I learned he was shot and paralyzed, I cheered. Good for God! At last, a bastard gets what he deserves in this life. And then, Gov. Wallace, prevented by law from seeking another term in offices, arranges for his WIFE to become governor, so he can continue with his reign of iniquity. And his wife is STRUCK DEAD WITH CANCER, while in office. Hooray for God! Now, Protestant televangelists are anxious to claim that HIV/AIDS is God's punishment to us, but they are hesitant to ascribe the paralysis of a racist biggot, and the death of his puppet wife, as an act of divine justice.
Let's pretend for a moment that the U.S. Constitution is amended to FORBID anyone from public office who is affiliated with organized religion, on the grounds that such a person could not represent their constituency in a genuinely unbiased fashion. What do you think that aspiring political candidates would do. I say they would carefully distance themselves from any religious affiliation, and portray themselves as secular humanists.
As it is right now, with Protestant affiliation being so fashionable for candidates, they strive to attend prayer breakfasts in Bible belt regions, and publicly state how Jesus came into their lives as their personal savior, while they were staggering with a hangover down the beach one day, chatting with Billy Graham.
By the way, the only President who REFUSED to have Billy Graham do his thing in the White house was the MOST devout of all the presidents, Jimmy Carter. When asked about this in an interview, Carter explained that Graham is a fine man, but the Whitehouse is not the place for such activities. By the way, the very first president who let Graham in the White house was Truman, and when Truman saw that Graham staged an unauthorized publicity shot out side the White house later, "bending the knee" in prayer with a few of his cronies, Truman became angry and refused to even entertain Graham again.
Postmodernist philosopher Derrida said it all when he said "Forgiveness, if it ever happens at all, takes place in the face of the unforgivable."
Your dog poops on my lawn, and I forgive you? Big deal?
But, forgiving the Nazi holocaust, or the atomic bomb, or the twin towers, or slavery... now THAT is forgiveness, ... IF you can really do it and not just pay lip service to the idea, like the Wallace family.
The Importance Of Experience
People express a concern that Obama or Hillary may lack sufficient experience.
George Bush has 8 years of experience. If Bush could seek a third term in office, would that "experience" be any sort of advantage?
Food for thought!
George Bush has 8 years of experience. If Bush could seek a third term in office, would that "experience" be any sort of advantage?
Food for thought!
Why Did You Have to Smile? (a poem I wrote)
I was ready to die.
It made sense because
Nothing made sense.
But you had to come along
And smile,
And speak with such a
Sweetness in your voice;
The violence of love!
Oh, you didn't know it was loaded?
Your smile with such charm,
Your voice with sweetness,
Your eyes hiding a promise of tomorrow?
Now, what am I to do?
Now, that you make no sense,
Everything makes perfect sense.
See what you've gone and done?
I hope you're pleased!
(2008)
It made sense because
Nothing made sense.
But you had to come along
And smile,
And speak with such a
Sweetness in your voice;
The violence of love!
Oh, you didn't know it was loaded?
Your smile with such charm,
Your voice with sweetness,
Your eyes hiding a promise of tomorrow?
Now, what am I to do?
Now, that you make no sense,
Everything makes perfect sense.
See what you've gone and done?
I hope you're pleased!
(2008)
A poem I wrote (untitled)
Did you ever wonder why
I never say "I love you?"
I don't have to.
It is so obvious.
Like Basho's Haiku
Frog jumps.
Plop!
Now, kiss me princely.
I never say "I love you?"
I don't have to.
It is so obvious.
Like Basho's Haiku
Frog jumps.
Plop!
Now, kiss me princely.
Cheryl Lynn Asks Regarding Faith
Dear Cheryl Lynn,
A young fish once asked an old wise fish how he might make a pilgrimage to the mighty ocean he had heard about. The wise old fish laughed and said, "the ocean is all around you!"
At the end of this comment I will post Paul's famous words about faith.
If you look at what Paul said, faith is more about having confidence, and persistence... simply to keep on trying.
Now, you will notice that all the Biblical characters that Paul mentions had some kind of challenge, or predicament or problem. It makes no sense to talk about faith, if everything is fine and dandy.
So, Cheryl Lynn, the way I see it, you already have a lot of faith, because you have a big problem that many of us do not have, and you keep on trying. You don't give up.
Mother Theresa made it through life by being a Roman Catholic nun. She accomplished some amazing things. Tich Naht Hahn made it through life by being a Buddhist monk. Rosa Parks did her thing in a bus. Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein did their things as an atheist and an agnostic, using math and physics. Anne Frank did her thing with a diary, and a persecution.
You must have heard that old story about someone who complains about the cross they have to bear, so God lets them shop around for a different cross. They tried on so many different crosses, of different sizes and weights and shapes. Finally when they find one that suits them, God laughs and says, "Why that's the cross I originally gave you.
So, Cheryl Lynn, who would you like to trade places with, and trade crosses with?
I say, it is no picnic to be Cheryl Lynn, me, or Heath Ledger, or Elvis Presley, or any number of other people one can think of
I don't say that everyone has it equally hard.
I have tried on many different religions and denominations. At this stage of the game, I don't expect to find a solution to my problems with a particular creed, or guru,
Here is the quote about Faith from St. Paul:
XI.--Now, faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. By this the ancients obtained reputation. By faith, we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God; so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.
4.--By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, on account of which he was commended as righteousness; God testifying in favor of his oblations: and so by it, though dead, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was translated, that he might not see death, and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation, it was testified that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him. By faith Noah, when he received a revelation concerning things not yet seen, being seized with religious fear, prepared an ark for the salvation of his family; by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when called to go out into a place, which he should after-wards receive as an inheritance, obeyed, and went out, not knowing wither he was going. By faith, he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the joint heirs of the same promise: for he expected the city having foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By faith also Sarah herself received strength for the conception of seed, and brought forth when past the time of life; because she judged him faithful who had promised. And therefore there sprang from one, who was dead in this respect, a race, as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is on the sea-shore, innumerable. All these died in faith, not having received the promises. For seeing the things promised afar off, and embracing them, they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims in the land. Now they who speak such tings, plainly declare that they earnestly seek a country. For truly, if they had remembered that from which they came out, they might have had an opportunity to return to it. But, indeed, they strongly desired a better country; that is, a heavenly. Therefore God is not ashamed of them,--to be called their God; because he has prepared for them a city. By faith Abraham, when tried, offered up Isaac; he who had received the promises, offered up his only begotten, concerning whom it was said, that "In Isaac shall they seed be called;" reasoning that God was able to raise him, even from the dead; from whence indeed, he received him in a figure. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, with respect to things to come. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, bowing on the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, when dying, made mention concerning the departing of the children of Israel, and gave commandment concerning his bones. By faith, Moes, when born, was hid three months by his parents, because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and were not afraid of the king's commandment. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer evil with the people of God, than to have the temporary fruition of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked forward to the retribution. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the wrath of the king. For he courageously persevered, as perceiving the invisible God. By faith he appointed the passover, and the sprinkling of the blood; that he who destroyed the first-born, might not touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land, which the Egyptians attempting to do, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, having been encompassed seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot was not destroyed with the unbelievers, having received the spies in peace. And what shall I say more? for the time would fail me to speak of Gideon, and Barak, and Samson, and Jepthah, and David also, and Samuel, and the prophets,--who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,--quenched the strength of fire, escaped the edges of the sword, grew strong from sickness, became valiant in battle, overturned the camps of the aliens. Women received their dead by a resurrection, and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. And others had trial of mockings and scourgings; and moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they died by the slaughter of the sword, they went about in sheep skins, and in goat skins, being destitute, afflicted, maltreated; of these the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and mountains, and in caves and holes of the earth. Now all these, though commended on account of faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
A young fish once asked an old wise fish how he might make a pilgrimage to the mighty ocean he had heard about. The wise old fish laughed and said, "the ocean is all around you!"
At the end of this comment I will post Paul's famous words about faith.
If you look at what Paul said, faith is more about having confidence, and persistence... simply to keep on trying.
Now, you will notice that all the Biblical characters that Paul mentions had some kind of challenge, or predicament or problem. It makes no sense to talk about faith, if everything is fine and dandy.
So, Cheryl Lynn, the way I see it, you already have a lot of faith, because you have a big problem that many of us do not have, and you keep on trying. You don't give up.
Mother Theresa made it through life by being a Roman Catholic nun. She accomplished some amazing things. Tich Naht Hahn made it through life by being a Buddhist monk. Rosa Parks did her thing in a bus. Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein did their things as an atheist and an agnostic, using math and physics. Anne Frank did her thing with a diary, and a persecution.
You must have heard that old story about someone who complains about the cross they have to bear, so God lets them shop around for a different cross. They tried on so many different crosses, of different sizes and weights and shapes. Finally when they find one that suits them, God laughs and says, "Why that's the cross I originally gave you.
So, Cheryl Lynn, who would you like to trade places with, and trade crosses with?
I say, it is no picnic to be Cheryl Lynn, me, or Heath Ledger, or Elvis Presley, or any number of other people one can think of
I don't say that everyone has it equally hard.
I have tried on many different religions and denominations. At this stage of the game, I don't expect to find a solution to my problems with a particular creed, or guru,
Here is the quote about Faith from St. Paul:
XI.--Now, faith is the confidence of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. By this the ancients obtained reputation. By faith, we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God; so that the things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear.
4.--By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, on account of which he was commended as righteousness; God testifying in favor of his oblations: and so by it, though dead, he still speaks. By faith Enoch was translated, that he might not see death, and was not found, because God had translated him; for before his translation, it was testified that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God, must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him. By faith Noah, when he received a revelation concerning things not yet seen, being seized with religious fear, prepared an ark for the salvation of his family; by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when called to go out into a place, which he should after-wards receive as an inheritance, obeyed, and went out, not knowing wither he was going. By faith, he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the joint heirs of the same promise: for he expected the city having foundations, whose builder and maker is God. By faith also Sarah herself received strength for the conception of seed, and brought forth when past the time of life; because she judged him faithful who had promised. And therefore there sprang from one, who was dead in this respect, a race, as the stars of heaven in multitude, and as the sand which is on the sea-shore, innumerable. All these died in faith, not having received the promises. For seeing the things promised afar off, and embracing them, they confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims in the land. Now they who speak such tings, plainly declare that they earnestly seek a country. For truly, if they had remembered that from which they came out, they might have had an opportunity to return to it. But, indeed, they strongly desired a better country; that is, a heavenly. Therefore God is not ashamed of them,--to be called their God; because he has prepared for them a city. By faith Abraham, when tried, offered up Isaac; he who had received the promises, offered up his only begotten, concerning whom it was said, that "In Isaac shall they seed be called;" reasoning that God was able to raise him, even from the dead; from whence indeed, he received him in a figure. By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau, with respect to things to come. By faith Jacob, when dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and worshiped, bowing on the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, when dying, made mention concerning the departing of the children of Israel, and gave commandment concerning his bones. By faith, Moes, when born, was hid three months by his parents, because they saw that he was a beautiful child, and were not afraid of the king's commandment. By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; choosing rather to suffer evil with the people of God, than to have the temporary fruition of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked forward to the retribution. By faith he left Egypt, not being afraid of the wrath of the king. For he courageously persevered, as perceiving the invisible God. By faith he appointed the passover, and the sprinkling of the blood; that he who destroyed the first-born, might not touch them. By faith they passed through the Red Sea, as by dry land, which the Egyptians attempting to do, were drowned. By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, having been encompassed seven days. By faith Rahab the harlot was not destroyed with the unbelievers, having received the spies in peace. And what shall I say more? for the time would fail me to speak of Gideon, and Barak, and Samson, and Jepthah, and David also, and Samuel, and the prophets,--who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,--quenched the strength of fire, escaped the edges of the sword, grew strong from sickness, became valiant in battle, overturned the camps of the aliens. Women received their dead by a resurrection, and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. And others had trial of mockings and scourgings; and moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they died by the slaughter of the sword, they went about in sheep skins, and in goat skins, being destitute, afflicted, maltreated; of these the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and mountains, and in caves and holes of the earth. Now all these, though commended on account of faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
Faith, Hope and Love
Jaroslav Pelikan, Yale Sterling professor of history, wrote a 5 volume history about the development of Christian doctrine, over the centuries.
Pelikan does something which amazed me. He quotes Paul's famous words, "faith hope, and love, but of these three, the greatest is LOVE", and then Pelikan talks of faith in terms, not of Paul's HOPE and confidence, but in the sense of doctrinal creed. In this way, Pelikan suggests that love is more important that doctrine. The Greeks recite the "Symvolon tees Pisteos", which means, "The Symbol of Faith", but it has to do with what specifically is believed:
I believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of everything visible and invisible. And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.... (and it goes on, I am doing this from memory.)
I believe there are people who live wonderful, saintly lives, outside of any organized religion. And I believe that there are many people who are outspoken believers of some particular creed or denomination, who are utter wretches and hypocrites.
Pelikan does something which amazed me. He quotes Paul's famous words, "faith hope, and love, but of these three, the greatest is LOVE", and then Pelikan talks of faith in terms, not of Paul's HOPE and confidence, but in the sense of doctrinal creed. In this way, Pelikan suggests that love is more important that doctrine. The Greeks recite the "Symvolon tees Pisteos", which means, "The Symbol of Faith", but it has to do with what specifically is believed:
I believe in one God, Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of everything visible and invisible. And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, Only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages.... (and it goes on, I am doing this from memory.)
I believe there are people who live wonderful, saintly lives, outside of any organized religion. And I believe that there are many people who are outspoken believers of some particular creed or denomination, who are utter wretches and hypocrites.
Did Adam and Eve Pray?
When we read Genesis, we are left with the impression that Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel simply talked with God. I must google and see the first mention in the Bible of someone actually praying.
Moses seems to talk directly to God. I think I remember Moses giving blessing.
Prophet Elias also seems to talk directly to God on one or more occasions.
Jesus says one should pray in private (in ones closet or room). This would seem to prohibit public congregational prayer.
Jesus says that God the Father already knows what we need before we ask.
When Jesus teaches people to pray, he recite the "Our Father, which art in heaven, etc...etc..." Does that mean that this is exactly and only what one should say in prayer?
Do angels pray? The vision of Ezekiel describes the Seraphim chanting "Holy Holy Holy, Lord God of Hosts". Interestingly, that phrase "Lord of Hosts" first appears in the prayer of Hannah, Prophet Samuel's mother. The expression "Lord of Hosts" never appears in any Old Testament books written prior to Samuel I.
Come to think of it, Balaam seems to speak directly with God, as does Samuel.
Moses seems to talk directly to God. I think I remember Moses giving blessing.
Prophet Elias also seems to talk directly to God on one or more occasions.
Jesus says one should pray in private (in ones closet or room). This would seem to prohibit public congregational prayer.
Jesus says that God the Father already knows what we need before we ask.
When Jesus teaches people to pray, he recite the "Our Father, which art in heaven, etc...etc..." Does that mean that this is exactly and only what one should say in prayer?
Do angels pray? The vision of Ezekiel describes the Seraphim chanting "Holy Holy Holy, Lord God of Hosts". Interestingly, that phrase "Lord of Hosts" first appears in the prayer of Hannah, Prophet Samuel's mother. The expression "Lord of Hosts" never appears in any Old Testament books written prior to Samuel I.
Come to think of it, Balaam seems to speak directly with God, as does Samuel.
Are There Miracles?
I will tell you one miracle I know of, but, kind of keep it to yourself...
Water is one of the few things which, when it freezes, suddenly expands 14%. This is why ice floats. Now, if water did not do this miraculous thing, then, all the water that freezes in the ocean would sink to the bottom, and eventually, there would not be enough water on the planet to sustain life.
Another miracle is the peculiar properties of carbon atoms, to allow long complex chains of organic compounds which makes life possible.
Actually, we are surrounded by all sorts of miracles... except, we don't call them miracles, because, we take them for granted and think of them as ordinary, common place, everyday...
Now, stop and think... Judas Iscariot was one of the apostles, so, he must have witnessed all sorts of miracles, and possibly even "performed" a few miracles himself. Yet, Judas' experience of the miraculous did not prevent him from committing suicide. Judas is one of the 7 or so suicides mentioned in the entire Bible.
The Prophet Job (in the Book of Job, in the Old Testaments Bible), was pretty depressed about all his misfortunes and maladies. Scripture tells us that Job basically curses the day he was conceived and the day he was born. I suppose Job was suicidal, in some sense. It does say that Job never cursed God.
Now, I am not certain there is any mention of Job "praying" in the modern sense. Job DOES make sacrifices daily, in the first chapter we are told, ... sacrifices on behalf of his children, on the chance that one of them might perhaps have SINNED UNAWARES. And at the end of the book of Job, God's voice, out of the whirlwind, orders job to sacrifice on behalf of his three friends. God says he will not accept offering directly from Bildad the Shuhite, and the others, because God is angry with them for having spoken incorrectly about God's nature.
In the ancient Greek Tragedies, we see the "unknown sin" plague someone like Oedipus.
By the time the Protestant Reformation comes along, we are mostly convinced that infants are sinless, and that the "age of reason" must be reached, of around 6 or 7, before we can understand how wretched we are, and be bonefide sinners. Infant baptism is continued by many, but the infant is barred from communion with the Eucharist on the grounds that they are not capable of making an "informed consent" before they reach the "age of reason".
Water is one of the few things which, when it freezes, suddenly expands 14%. This is why ice floats. Now, if water did not do this miraculous thing, then, all the water that freezes in the ocean would sink to the bottom, and eventually, there would not be enough water on the planet to sustain life.
Another miracle is the peculiar properties of carbon atoms, to allow long complex chains of organic compounds which makes life possible.
Actually, we are surrounded by all sorts of miracles... except, we don't call them miracles, because, we take them for granted and think of them as ordinary, common place, everyday...
Now, stop and think... Judas Iscariot was one of the apostles, so, he must have witnessed all sorts of miracles, and possibly even "performed" a few miracles himself. Yet, Judas' experience of the miraculous did not prevent him from committing suicide. Judas is one of the 7 or so suicides mentioned in the entire Bible.
The Prophet Job (in the Book of Job, in the Old Testaments Bible), was pretty depressed about all his misfortunes and maladies. Scripture tells us that Job basically curses the day he was conceived and the day he was born. I suppose Job was suicidal, in some sense. It does say that Job never cursed God.
Now, I am not certain there is any mention of Job "praying" in the modern sense. Job DOES make sacrifices daily, in the first chapter we are told, ... sacrifices on behalf of his children, on the chance that one of them might perhaps have SINNED UNAWARES. And at the end of the book of Job, God's voice, out of the whirlwind, orders job to sacrifice on behalf of his three friends. God says he will not accept offering directly from Bildad the Shuhite, and the others, because God is angry with them for having spoken incorrectly about God's nature.
In the ancient Greek Tragedies, we see the "unknown sin" plague someone like Oedipus.
By the time the Protestant Reformation comes along, we are mostly convinced that infants are sinless, and that the "age of reason" must be reached, of around 6 or 7, before we can understand how wretched we are, and be bonefide sinners. Infant baptism is continued by many, but the infant is barred from communion with the Eucharist on the grounds that they are not capable of making an "informed consent" before they reach the "age of reason".
The Necessary Angel
I am reminded of Wallace Stevens' poem "ANGEL SURROUNDED BY PAYSANS".
excerpts:
Yet I am the necessary Angel of earth, since, in my sight, you see the earth again...
I am one of you and being one of you
Is being and knowing what I am and know.
Yet I am the necessary angel of earth,
Since, in my sight, you see the earth again,
Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set
And, in my hearing, you hear its tragic drone
Rise liquidly in liquid lingerings,
Like watery words awash; like meanings said
By repetitions of half-meanings. Am I not,
Myself, only half a figure of a sort,
A figure half seen, or seen for a moment, a man
Of the mind, an apparition appareled in
Apparels of such lightest look that a turn
Of my shoulders and quickly, too quickly, I am gone?
=============
I am reminded of something very powerful which I once read in the
collected letters of the poet Wallace Stevens. Someone asked for his
opinion of a certain published poet, and Stevens simply replied, "He
does not write as though he HAS to write."
When one MUST write, regardless of the consequences; when one MUST
write even though it means a life of failure, scorn, poverty and the
loss of family and friends; when one MUST write even at the risk of
one's live and freedom in a totalitarian society; when one MUST write
as an expression of one's very being, a need as primordial as thirst
and hunger, then one is a writer in the utmost sense of the word, and
success or income has no bearing on the matter but is simply a by-
product of what one MUST do.
For a writer such as this, all of life and existence is a means to an
end and that end is writing. For all others, writing is a means to
some end, whether it be recognition or income or something else.
A writer such as I have described does not choose to be what they
are, for had they some choice in the matter, one could not truly say
that they write because they MUST.
Since Wallace Stevens has been quoted, one may reasonably assume that
Stevens wrote because he MUST write. Indeed, he was a very successful
Hartford Insurance company Vice President. Many of his business
associates had no idea that he was a world-renowned poet. If one
reads the collected poems of Wallace Stevens, and his essays on
imagination, "The Necessary Angel" (a title taken from his
poem "Angel Among Paysans") then one begins to understand the life of
someone who wrote because he MUST write.
Wallace Stevens was personal friends with both Carl Sandburg and
Robert Frost. Stevens used to laugh at Sandburg behind his back for
Sandburg's habit of arriving from week on the road, giving readings,
and counting all his payment checks over and over like some miser.
I do not imagine that Carl Sandburg wrote because he MUST. I imagine
that writing was for Sandburg a means to some other end. That does
not mean that Sandburg was bad or that Sandburg was wrong or even
that Sandburg had a choice in the matter. I imagine that Frost wrote
because he MUST.
It would be an interesting and instructive exercise to expand upon
this notion of what it means to write because one MUST and, having
constructed this lens of narrative necessity, to survey the panorama
of the centuries of world literature seeking out those who wrote
because they MUST, and what it is that makes their writing different
from other writers and how their writing makes us different.
Frost once spoke of that line from a poem which "immortally" wounds.
=============
Jesus once saw a fig tree from a distance, whose foliage and bloom promised fruit. Yet, when he approached to partake, he found no fruit. So, he cursed the tree saying "Xeranthesete!" (Be thou withered). The next day, the Apostles observed that the tree had dried up and died. The blind see at once. The dead arise immediately. The tree dies overnight.
Is the fig tree evil because it is useless?
excerpts:
Yet I am the necessary Angel of earth, since, in my sight, you see the earth again...
I am one of you and being one of you
Is being and knowing what I am and know.
Yet I am the necessary angel of earth,
Since, in my sight, you see the earth again,
Cleared of its stiff and stubborn, man-locked set
And, in my hearing, you hear its tragic drone
Rise liquidly in liquid lingerings,
Like watery words awash; like meanings said
By repetitions of half-meanings. Am I not,
Myself, only half a figure of a sort,
A figure half seen, or seen for a moment, a man
Of the mind, an apparition appareled in
Apparels of such lightest look that a turn
Of my shoulders and quickly, too quickly, I am gone?
=============
I am reminded of something very powerful which I once read in the
collected letters of the poet Wallace Stevens. Someone asked for his
opinion of a certain published poet, and Stevens simply replied, "He
does not write as though he HAS to write."
When one MUST write, regardless of the consequences; when one MUST
write even though it means a life of failure, scorn, poverty and the
loss of family and friends; when one MUST write even at the risk of
one's live and freedom in a totalitarian society; when one MUST write
as an expression of one's very being, a need as primordial as thirst
and hunger, then one is a writer in the utmost sense of the word, and
success or income has no bearing on the matter but is simply a by-
product of what one MUST do.
For a writer such as this, all of life and existence is a means to an
end and that end is writing. For all others, writing is a means to
some end, whether it be recognition or income or something else.
A writer such as I have described does not choose to be what they
are, for had they some choice in the matter, one could not truly say
that they write because they MUST.
Since Wallace Stevens has been quoted, one may reasonably assume that
Stevens wrote because he MUST write. Indeed, he was a very successful
Hartford Insurance company Vice President. Many of his business
associates had no idea that he was a world-renowned poet. If one
reads the collected poems of Wallace Stevens, and his essays on
imagination, "The Necessary Angel" (a title taken from his
poem "Angel Among Paysans") then one begins to understand the life of
someone who wrote because he MUST write.
Wallace Stevens was personal friends with both Carl Sandburg and
Robert Frost. Stevens used to laugh at Sandburg behind his back for
Sandburg's habit of arriving from week on the road, giving readings,
and counting all his payment checks over and over like some miser.
I do not imagine that Carl Sandburg wrote because he MUST. I imagine
that writing was for Sandburg a means to some other end. That does
not mean that Sandburg was bad or that Sandburg was wrong or even
that Sandburg had a choice in the matter. I imagine that Frost wrote
because he MUST.
It would be an interesting and instructive exercise to expand upon
this notion of what it means to write because one MUST and, having
constructed this lens of narrative necessity, to survey the panorama
of the centuries of world literature seeking out those who wrote
because they MUST, and what it is that makes their writing different
from other writers and how their writing makes us different.
Frost once spoke of that line from a poem which "immortally" wounds.
=============
Jesus once saw a fig tree from a distance, whose foliage and bloom promised fruit. Yet, when he approached to partake, he found no fruit. So, he cursed the tree saying "Xeranthesete!" (Be thou withered). The next day, the Apostles observed that the tree had dried up and died. The blind see at once. The dead arise immediately. The tree dies overnight.
Is the fig tree evil because it is useless?
Doing Your Own Thing
This is an important point you raise, about the homeless man who could not paint that well but did it because that was all he could do.
There is a saying, "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing poorly (badly)." Not that we should not give everything we do our best effort. But we should not be discouraged and stop jogging or practicing the violin, or singing, simply because we are not at Olympic/Carneige Hall/Julliard level.
I am also reminded of a passage in the Bhagavad-Gita which states that it is better to do your own dharma imperfectly, than the dharma of another. Oh gosh, now I have to come up with an explanation of "dharma".
Google brings me to World Religions: An Introduction for Students
By Jeaneane D. Fowler
page 209
There is a UNIVERSAL dharma, satanadharma, the cosmic norm, to which everything is subject.
For any individual there is svadharma (one's personal dharma), which is the result of all present life and past life karma. To go against ones personal dharma path is to be adharmic, which will cause negative karma in the future. Sitaram thinks of svadharma as the knitting needles we receive to undo the knots in our karma. We could attack this Gordian knot with violence of the sword, but that is not what is needful.
Back to the passage in that text book:
which then quotes the Gita, "Better one's own dharma, devoid of merit, then the well-discharged dharma of another. Death in one's own dharma is better; the dharma of another is fraught with fear.
Now, the ultimate goal is not increasing good karma, but achieving moksha, reuniting with Brahman like a river which merges into the sea. Since the inner atman, which must merge with Brahman, is beyond dualities, it is beyond both good and bad karma.
I once read that "the desire for liberation itself, that very desire, is an impediment to liberation." (Liberation being moksha).
There are edition of the Greek Orthodox Philokalia which show monastics ascending a ladder to heaven (John Climacus, John of The Ladder), and as the ascend higher and higher towards saintliness, some are falling from the ladder because they succumb to pride.
Once there was an old monk in a Russian monastery, who seemed so meek and long suffering. The other monks were always picking on him. A priest questioned the old monk, as to how he endured such things, and the old monk answered "they are simply dogs nipping at my heals." But, you see this remark revealed the underlying pride of the old monk, who endured by means of the thought that he is superior.
I work for a man who comes from a wealthy and powerful family in France. He is totally optimized in his personality to be a successful entrepreneur, and break into an existing market place which is dominated by giants. His optimism is boundless, even in the face of circumstances which might discourage others. He takes bold and daring risks which might terrify others who are more conservative in nature. If he is ultimately successful, he will succeed precisely because of all these characteristics which are part of his svadharma. He usually converses in French, and assumes I do not understand anything of what he is saying. I once heard him say of me, "ah, he is nothing but an intellectual, but in the end I shall have the last laugh and achieve wealth and success."
Yes, he is correct. I am an intellectual. But, I am what I am, not because I woke up one morning and decided to be an intellectual, rather than an entrepreneur. It was in my nature from my infancy. Yes, I did make conscious choices to pursue and exercise those "talents" which are innate within me. I recognized what my own dharma is, and I surrendered to it. That did not make me the best intellectual, or some Olympic champion in a world hall of fame. I had the opportunity to "become" what I "am" and, in my case, to write about it. Perhaps a few of my thoughts shall survive on in the world, or perhaps not.
All of this makes me think of President George Bush. Every little boy in American has been encouraged at some point to proclaim "I want to be president when I grow up." I feel deep in my heart there there was something in this world, some path, some svadharam, at which he would have excelled. Even fellow former president Jimmy Carter exclaimed that Bush is perhaps the worst president in history.
The New Yorker Magazine once published a cartoon of a frustrated clown, seated in front of his dressing-room mirror, emoting, and reciting Shakespeare. The clown was a good clown, but hankered to be a Shakespearean dramatic actor. We see the same thing in "The Simposons" cartoon, where Side-Show Bob yearns to be taken more seriously.
Here is some correspondence I had in 1999:
8-3-99)
(correspondence from Andre)
My belief structure is based on the Law of One and I would greatly appreciate if you could put words to an emotion, a feeling I know and yet cannot summarize in a sentence.
What knowladge can you share with me regarding the question - What is soul ?
Thanx for a great site
Love and Light
=======================
Hi , nice to meet you.....
Excellent question....
Quickly, off the top of my head so you will have some kind of answer (for there is no easy answer to this)..... in Old Testatament, Hebrew word for Soul is Ru-ah (which I believe means something that flows, or blows like the wind). In New Testament, of course, we have the word Psyche for soul, but we have Pnevma for spirit, which also means wind or breath. Then we have, in Isaiah book of Old testament,... God saying.... "As high as heaven is from earth, so high are my ways from your ways, my MIND from your MIND (or My thoughts from your thoughts)"......
What I am driving at is the Hindu notion that the soul, atman, jiva, is a spark from God, who is brighter than 10,000 suns (phrase from the Gita).
In Hinduism and Buddhism, and other religions, it is CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF which is divine, sacred, non-different from the Divinity.
Perhaps we could look at the words of Jesus "The Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN you" which might also accurately be translated "The Kingdom of Heaven is AMONG you"..... and also where Jesus says "In my Fathers house, there are many mansions, I go there to prepare a place for you."..... well, in the COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS of the Divinity there are many individual personalities, souls, jiva,.....
I suppose one could also see this concept in the Christian teaching that the people of the Church are collectively THE BODY OF CHRIST.
But do re-read page 2 of my website which quotes the thoughts of Meher Baba on the relationship between God and individual souls..
I hope this will give you some food for thought.....
============================================
Andre, your words: { a feeling I know and yet cannot summarize in a sentence. }
remind me of the verse from the "Way of the Tao" by Lao Tse,
The TAO which can be spoken is not the TAO.
and also,
He who KNOWS does not say, and he who SAYS does not know.
Also a hymn by Shankaracharya of India in the 8th century C.E. which begins
"Oh Thou from whom all WORDS recoil...."
(in other words, the Divinity is ineffable, much like the APOPHATIC {speaking AWAY from} theology of the early centuries of Christianity..... in other words we cannot say what God IS, we can only say what God IS NOT)
an also, pay particular attention in the website to the Jain religious term
ANEKANTAVADA, which means "No one view", also called "Doctrine of Manifold Aspects"..... it means that every attempt at verbalization of reality is but a partial truth of reality from only one of an innumerable number of aspects....
====================================
I was listening to an interview on Television regarding the works of the now deceased author, Jennifer Lash, who wrote "Blood Ties".
One of her daughters read an excerpt from one of her mother's novels (I did not catch the title).
In the passage, some people enter into an abandoned church. A large white owl has become trapped inside the church.
As they watch, it frantically flies back and forth, dashing itself into the walls.
There are holes in the roof which would afford an escape, but the owl is too panicked to find them. The woman in the church who recounts this scene cannot bear to stay and watch the owl destroy itself while they stand by, helpless, watching.
Later in the day, that woman recollects the scene, and thinks to herself,
"Suppose the SOUL is like that owl, trapped in the mind, dashing itself frantically, injuring itself, destroying itself. There are exits, escapes, ways out, but the soul cannot see them. And God watches helplessly (I suppose because of the inviolable sanctity of the soul's free will). What anguish might that be for God, watching?"
===============================
Another thought which comes to mind (I don't know where I heard or read this)
"Man is Matter which contemplates Itself"
Carl Jung wrote a small monograph entitled "On the Nature of the Psyche (Soul)"
It is rather difficult reading.
In it, he states that MATTER has a PSYCHOID nature. In other words, matter STRIVES to evolve into CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness, conversely, has a MATERIAL nature (sort of like Freud's Death Wish, or Death Instinct). Consciousness is wounded by feeling, and secretly yearns for NON-EXISTENCE.
One striking statement which Jung makes in that monograph is the following:
"If the time ever comes when mankind builds a rocket, strikes Mars with the rocket, and causes damage to the planet Mars, it will certainly be accurate to say that Mars was damaged by the 'Psychoid Nature" of Matter, since matter evolved lifeforms, and consciousness, and the human consciousness invented the rocket and aimed it at Mars."
=====================================
(correspondence from Siddhartha)
Hello,
I visited your site. It was very informative.
I have a question. Do you have any idea as to why the Supreme Brahman bothers to project the material universe from within itself?
I have been pondering the question a lot. A Gaudia Vishnava (Hare Krishna) said that the spiritual realm is timeless (fair enough) and then the Supreme Brahman projected the material realm from itself. Why is my question?
If you have an answer, could you point me to the scriptures that inspired that answer.
Your assistance is appreciated.
==========================================
I read page 2. It was very nice but the passage mainly talks about how everything aspires to realize Brahman. And not about why God bothered creating us and the Universe.
I have heard the quote you mentioned, i.e. about even Brahman not knowing from whence it came but... that makes me feel very scared. Even God does not know?
Maybe I should tell you why this is so important for me. This may seem childish... and I am a child as far spiritual matters are concerned. I am 20 years old now. Ok I aspired to be an Astronaut (told you it's gonna be childish) because I believed that I would find God up there. I have enrolled in Aero Engineering at my University. I am an average student. I believed that my path toward God would be through union with the Mechanical aspects of the world. But as time has passed I have immersed myself in nationalism and politics (it is written in my Jnamakshar that I would be a small time politician). I have strayed from what I believed to be my path to God. Ok, then now the real thing. See if I know why God bothered to create the Universe then I would know if it is worth striving for union with God. In other words, is it worth uniting with him at all?
I hope you humor me and help me.
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 I wrote:
One of the best answers i have encountered, was a little passage written by Meher Baba, which I reprint on Page 2 of my website..... have a look at that page 2 dialogue.... and then we can talk some more..... these are not easy questions, and I certainly do not have all the answers, anymore than anyone else does..... what was that passage in the Upanishads which said,.... "Perhaps Brahman knows, or perhaps Brahman is unawares..... " it is the first page in my paperback edition of Bramha-sutras translated by (I think) Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan, I dont have it in front of me at the moment... it is such a startlingly open-minded and honest point of view in an ancient scripture....
============================================================
For some reason... God creates Other... Separation... and part of God becomes that Other... and suffers SEPARATION... but ... learns something in the process... and ultimately REUNITES with the source "
What is that reason for God to initiate separation? See Judaism and Christianity have creation defined in Genesis but I feel that makes Earth far to "special." I believe there is other life or universes. And the concept that God created the Universe for his pleasure-well I have one word if that is why God created us-sadist. And that u go to heaven and feel no sorrow blah blah if you are good is so childish, like u get candy if u r good
The problem with Hinduism is that it dwells on the path to unity but doesn't seem to bother with do I want this unity with God? And for me it directly ties in with why God created the Universe?
I know I am flooding you but I am kinda... desperate.
============================================================
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 I wrote:
Pegarding concept of "only one universe".... look at page entitled "Black Holes, Lord Krsna's Pearls "
======================================
I was talking with a friend a while ago and asked him this same question regarding creation and he said the even Brahman must do karma and he said that there was proof of this in a verse in the Gita when Krishna is in Virat-swarup and tells Arjun that even Brahman must do karma and thus he creates and destroys. I looked for the verse in the copy of the Gita I had and could not find it. Maybe I have a bad translation or did not look carefully enough (I have that problem-too much skimming)? I will look again.
You speak of our souls being "sparks" of Brahman, I loooooooooove that. Then my question is... why does Brahman frizzle and crackle (partly j/k) I understand that is hard to answer.
That karma applies to Brahman is nice. Since we are part of God and we are bound to do karma so even the Supreme should be bound by that. But one attains, jivanmukti only when the karma they do has no consequence (u know I do not understand the idea of an action having no consequence, do you have a webpage on that?). So I would think Gods karma has no consequence.
Any thoughts?
================================================================
Ok, so Brahman is beyond karmic consequence... but he does perform karma right?
But still, why bother creating... sometimes in your webpages you talk about a causal universe and at other times about spontaneity-i.e. sparks. If I were Brahman, in supreme bliss and absolute equanimity with good and evil, truth and untruth, all duality, why would I want to exert a part of me and make a part of myself not realize this equanimity and ingrain this part with an urge to evolve, to look for this equanimity and eventually return to my Supreme self? Do I not know that I am in perfect equanimity that I must go through this process?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote:
I suppose i could offer you a typical Vaishnav answer from Srimad Bhagavatam,..... sort of a Hare Krsna answer.... namely, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Primal Lord, (Krsna), is beyond karmic consequences, and there are passages in Gita which indicate this.... but that other Demigods like Indra, Bramha, etc.... are Deities who are subject to Karma.... there is a story about someone experiencing a vision of millions of ants,.... passing through a palace, and it was revealed that each of those ants had, in a previous birth, been Lord Indra, and "in charge" of a universe.....
====================================
I just read your page "A hard day online" You are GOOD man. Haha. But I learnt a lot. My roomate in college 1 year ago is Christian, I don't know whether protestant, I had asked him what denomination and he told me something real long anyways one day he mentioned out of the blue... "Jews are bad, they smell they dont take baths." I was surprised. Now that comes to my mind again after reading your page.
You mentioned on that page that it is a thankless job and someone has got to do it. Well, I am sure many have said this but, thank you. Thank you very much for what you have done.
Regarding what u wrote below. A circle is perfect because it has no jagged edges? I don't know. What do you mean by "Why did it set out in the first place..." ?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote:
If a perfect circle returns to the point from which it started, why did it set out in the first place.... and why is it "perfect".....
God is an infinite circle, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere
===========================================
I have decided to think about what you said before responding in anyway. I am going to go through some webpages, look for that verse from the Gita and look at the verses in the Rig Veda on creation (Purusha and Prakriti sacrifice). I have to get a better understanding of Maya for I have a feeling that this Universe is Maya and since my concern is with the creation of Maya (for I am comfortable with the idea that we are part of the Supreme). Now, why create Maya and we get separated from the Supreme, I want to concentrate on Maya for a while.
I was supposed to write a profile on Keshab Chandra Sen, social revolutionary in India born in 1834. He was very attracted to the west and was blamed of being too sympathetic toward Christianity. I also have to go to a info session on Kashmir tomorrow.
=================================================================
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote
Why does Brahman cast out the phenomenal universe, as a spider castes out its web..... only to draw it back to Himself, and what does He catch in this web of Maya?
And what does the circle enclose?
The reason I can see is that Brahman wants the sparks that have left Brahman to return. Does this make sense?
Then the question I asked in one of the previous emails, why does Brahman crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks?
Please help... ============================================================
In a message dated 7/19/99 11:20:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Siddhartha writes
{ The reason I can see is that Brahman wants the sparks that have left Brahman to return. Does this make sense? Then the question I asked in one of the previous emails, why does Brahman crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks? }
=============================== (my reply)
I have been thinking about your most excellent question, namely, why does ANY OF THIS take place to begin with.... or... as you put it... why does Brahman "crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks"......
Of course, you are asking about the very fountainhead of all CAUSALITY.
I recently read that Physicists have discovered sub-atomic "EVENTS" which are PURELY SPONTANEOUS, i.e., have no other cause, but are CAUSELESS.
Of course, I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, so I must take the word of documentaries regarding such discoveries.
But it is interesting that scientists have found in Nature what truly seems to be CAUSELESS sparks or events.
Funny how the word "causeless" makes me think of Lord Chaitanya's words "Causeless Mercy" in Vaishnav writings.
The only other help thing I have found concerning the reason for this "crackling" and "fizzling", is on page 2 of my website... the words of Meher Baba which I quote....
I enjoy hearing from you....
Please do write again, even if only to tell me news about your life and thoughts...
Not everything that we write has to be of a profound religious or philosophical nature.
========================================
It is your very words below that I echo back to you when I speak of the circle, why does it set out, if its nature is to return to itself?
{ But still, why bother creating... sometimes in your webpages you talk about a causal universe and at other times about spontaneity-i.e. sparks. If I were Brahman, in supreme bliss and absolute equanimity with good and evil, truth and untruth, all duality, why would I want to exert a part of me and make a part of myself not realize this equanimity and ingrain this part with an urge to evolve, to look for this equanimity and eventually return to my Supreme self? Do I not know that I am in perfect equanimity that I must go through this process?}
Why does Brahman cast out the phenomenal universe, as a spider castes out its web..... only to draw it back to Himself, and what does He catch in this web of Maya?
And what does the circle enclose?
================================
if a perfect circle returns to the point from which it started, why did it set out in the first place.... and why is it "perfect".....
God is an infinite circle, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere
=======================================
I suppose i could offer you a typical Vaishnav answer from Srimad Bhagavatam,..... sort of a Hare Krsna answer.... namely, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Primal Lord, (Krsna), is beyond karmic consequences, and there are passages in Gita which indicate this.... but that other Demigods like Indra, Bramha, etc.... are Dieties who are subject to Karma.... there is a story about someone experiencing a vision of millions of ants,.... passing through a palace, and it was revealed that each of those ants had, in a previous birth, been Lord Indra, and "in charge" of a universe.....
==========================
One of the best answers I have encountered, was a little passage written by Meher Baba, which I reprint on Page 2 of my website..... have a look at that page 2 dialogue.... and then we can talk some more..... these are not easy questions, and I certainly do not have all the answers, anymore than anyone else does..... what was that passage in the Upanishads which said,.... "Perhaps Brahman knows, or perhaps Brahman is unawares..... " it is the first page in my paperback edition translated by (I think) Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan, I don't have it in front of me at the moment... it is such a startlingly open-minded and honest point of view in an ancient scripture....
There is a saying, "If something is worth doing, it is worth doing poorly (badly)." Not that we should not give everything we do our best effort. But we should not be discouraged and stop jogging or practicing the violin, or singing, simply because we are not at Olympic/Carneige Hall/Julliard level.
I am also reminded of a passage in the Bhagavad-Gita which states that it is better to do your own dharma imperfectly, than the dharma of another. Oh gosh, now I have to come up with an explanation of "dharma".
Google brings me to World Religions: An Introduction for Students
By Jeaneane D. Fowler
page 209
There is a UNIVERSAL dharma, satanadharma, the cosmic norm, to which everything is subject.
For any individual there is svadharma (one's personal dharma), which is the result of all present life and past life karma. To go against ones personal dharma path is to be adharmic, which will cause negative karma in the future. Sitaram thinks of svadharma as the knitting needles we receive to undo the knots in our karma. We could attack this Gordian knot with violence of the sword, but that is not what is needful.
Back to the passage in that text book:
which then quotes the Gita, "Better one's own dharma, devoid of merit, then the well-discharged dharma of another. Death in one's own dharma is better; the dharma of another is fraught with fear.
Now, the ultimate goal is not increasing good karma, but achieving moksha, reuniting with Brahman like a river which merges into the sea. Since the inner atman, which must merge with Brahman, is beyond dualities, it is beyond both good and bad karma.
I once read that "the desire for liberation itself, that very desire, is an impediment to liberation." (Liberation being moksha).
There are edition of the Greek Orthodox Philokalia which show monastics ascending a ladder to heaven (John Climacus, John of The Ladder), and as the ascend higher and higher towards saintliness, some are falling from the ladder because they succumb to pride.
Once there was an old monk in a Russian monastery, who seemed so meek and long suffering. The other monks were always picking on him. A priest questioned the old monk, as to how he endured such things, and the old monk answered "they are simply dogs nipping at my heals." But, you see this remark revealed the underlying pride of the old monk, who endured by means of the thought that he is superior.
I work for a man who comes from a wealthy and powerful family in France. He is totally optimized in his personality to be a successful entrepreneur, and break into an existing market place which is dominated by giants. His optimism is boundless, even in the face of circumstances which might discourage others. He takes bold and daring risks which might terrify others who are more conservative in nature. If he is ultimately successful, he will succeed precisely because of all these characteristics which are part of his svadharma. He usually converses in French, and assumes I do not understand anything of what he is saying. I once heard him say of me, "ah, he is nothing but an intellectual, but in the end I shall have the last laugh and achieve wealth and success."
Yes, he is correct. I am an intellectual. But, I am what I am, not because I woke up one morning and decided to be an intellectual, rather than an entrepreneur. It was in my nature from my infancy. Yes, I did make conscious choices to pursue and exercise those "talents" which are innate within me. I recognized what my own dharma is, and I surrendered to it. That did not make me the best intellectual, or some Olympic champion in a world hall of fame. I had the opportunity to "become" what I "am" and, in my case, to write about it. Perhaps a few of my thoughts shall survive on in the world, or perhaps not.
All of this makes me think of President George Bush. Every little boy in American has been encouraged at some point to proclaim "I want to be president when I grow up." I feel deep in my heart there there was something in this world, some path, some svadharam, at which he would have excelled. Even fellow former president Jimmy Carter exclaimed that Bush is perhaps the worst president in history.
The New Yorker Magazine once published a cartoon of a frustrated clown, seated in front of his dressing-room mirror, emoting, and reciting Shakespeare. The clown was a good clown, but hankered to be a Shakespearean dramatic actor. We see the same thing in "The Simposons" cartoon, where Side-Show Bob yearns to be taken more seriously.
Here is some correspondence I had in 1999:
8-3-99)
(correspondence from Andre)
My belief structure is based on the Law of One and I would greatly appreciate if you could put words to an emotion, a feeling I know and yet cannot summarize in a sentence.
What knowladge can you share with me regarding the question - What is soul ?
Thanx for a great site
Love and Light
=======================
Hi , nice to meet you.....
Excellent question....
Quickly, off the top of my head so you will have some kind of answer (for there is no easy answer to this)..... in Old Testatament, Hebrew word for Soul is Ru-ah (which I believe means something that flows, or blows like the wind). In New Testament, of course, we have the word Psyche for soul, but we have Pnevma for spirit, which also means wind or breath. Then we have, in Isaiah book of Old testament,... God saying.... "As high as heaven is from earth, so high are my ways from your ways, my MIND from your MIND (or My thoughts from your thoughts)"......
What I am driving at is the Hindu notion that the soul, atman, jiva, is a spark from God, who is brighter than 10,000 suns (phrase from the Gita).
In Hinduism and Buddhism, and other religions, it is CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF which is divine, sacred, non-different from the Divinity.
Perhaps we could look at the words of Jesus "The Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN you" which might also accurately be translated "The Kingdom of Heaven is AMONG you"..... and also where Jesus says "In my Fathers house, there are many mansions, I go there to prepare a place for you."..... well, in the COLLECTIVE CONSCIOUSNESS of the Divinity there are many individual personalities, souls, jiva,.....
I suppose one could also see this concept in the Christian teaching that the people of the Church are collectively THE BODY OF CHRIST.
But do re-read page 2 of my website which quotes the thoughts of Meher Baba on the relationship between God and individual souls..
I hope this will give you some food for thought.....
============================================
Andre, your words: { a feeling I know and yet cannot summarize in a sentence. }
remind me of the verse from the "Way of the Tao" by Lao Tse,
The TAO which can be spoken is not the TAO.
and also,
He who KNOWS does not say, and he who SAYS does not know.
Also a hymn by Shankaracharya of India in the 8th century C.E. which begins
"Oh Thou from whom all WORDS recoil...."
(in other words, the Divinity is ineffable, much like the APOPHATIC {speaking AWAY from} theology of the early centuries of Christianity..... in other words we cannot say what God IS, we can only say what God IS NOT)
an also, pay particular attention in the website to the Jain religious term
ANEKANTAVADA, which means "No one view", also called "Doctrine of Manifold Aspects"..... it means that every attempt at verbalization of reality is but a partial truth of reality from only one of an innumerable number of aspects....
====================================
I was listening to an interview on Television regarding the works of the now deceased author, Jennifer Lash, who wrote "Blood Ties".
One of her daughters read an excerpt from one of her mother's novels (I did not catch the title).
In the passage, some people enter into an abandoned church. A large white owl has become trapped inside the church.
As they watch, it frantically flies back and forth, dashing itself into the walls.
There are holes in the roof which would afford an escape, but the owl is too panicked to find them. The woman in the church who recounts this scene cannot bear to stay and watch the owl destroy itself while they stand by, helpless, watching.
Later in the day, that woman recollects the scene, and thinks to herself,
"Suppose the SOUL is like that owl, trapped in the mind, dashing itself frantically, injuring itself, destroying itself. There are exits, escapes, ways out, but the soul cannot see them. And God watches helplessly (I suppose because of the inviolable sanctity of the soul's free will). What anguish might that be for God, watching?"
===============================
Another thought which comes to mind (I don't know where I heard or read this)
"Man is Matter which contemplates Itself"
Carl Jung wrote a small monograph entitled "On the Nature of the Psyche (Soul)"
It is rather difficult reading.
In it, he states that MATTER has a PSYCHOID nature. In other words, matter STRIVES to evolve into CONSCIOUSNESS. Consciousness, conversely, has a MATERIAL nature (sort of like Freud's Death Wish, or Death Instinct). Consciousness is wounded by feeling, and secretly yearns for NON-EXISTENCE.
One striking statement which Jung makes in that monograph is the following:
"If the time ever comes when mankind builds a rocket, strikes Mars with the rocket, and causes damage to the planet Mars, it will certainly be accurate to say that Mars was damaged by the 'Psychoid Nature" of Matter, since matter evolved lifeforms, and consciousness, and the human consciousness invented the rocket and aimed it at Mars."
=====================================
(correspondence from Siddhartha)
Hello,
I visited your site. It was very informative.
I have a question. Do you have any idea as to why the Supreme Brahman bothers to project the material universe from within itself?
I have been pondering the question a lot. A Gaudia Vishnava (Hare Krishna) said that the spiritual realm is timeless (fair enough) and then the Supreme Brahman projected the material realm from itself. Why is my question?
If you have an answer, could you point me to the scriptures that inspired that answer.
Your assistance is appreciated.
==========================================
I read page 2. It was very nice but the passage mainly talks about how everything aspires to realize Brahman. And not about why God bothered creating us and the Universe.
I have heard the quote you mentioned, i.e. about even Brahman not knowing from whence it came but... that makes me feel very scared. Even God does not know?
Maybe I should tell you why this is so important for me. This may seem childish... and I am a child as far spiritual matters are concerned. I am 20 years old now. Ok I aspired to be an Astronaut (told you it's gonna be childish) because I believed that I would find God up there. I have enrolled in Aero Engineering at my University. I am an average student. I believed that my path toward God would be through union with the Mechanical aspects of the world. But as time has passed I have immersed myself in nationalism and politics (it is written in my Jnamakshar that I would be a small time politician). I have strayed from what I believed to be my path to God. Ok, then now the real thing. See if I know why God bothered to create the Universe then I would know if it is worth striving for union with God. In other words, is it worth uniting with him at all?
I hope you humor me and help me.
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 I wrote:
One of the best answers i have encountered, was a little passage written by Meher Baba, which I reprint on Page 2 of my website..... have a look at that page 2 dialogue.... and then we can talk some more..... these are not easy questions, and I certainly do not have all the answers, anymore than anyone else does..... what was that passage in the Upanishads which said,.... "Perhaps Brahman knows, or perhaps Brahman is unawares..... " it is the first page in my paperback edition of Bramha-sutras translated by (I think) Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan, I dont have it in front of me at the moment... it is such a startlingly open-minded and honest point of view in an ancient scripture....
============================================================
For some reason... God creates Other... Separation... and part of God becomes that Other... and suffers SEPARATION... but ... learns something in the process... and ultimately REUNITES with the source "
What is that reason for God to initiate separation? See Judaism and Christianity have creation defined in Genesis but I feel that makes Earth far to "special." I believe there is other life or universes. And the concept that God created the Universe for his pleasure-well I have one word if that is why God created us-sadist. And that u go to heaven and feel no sorrow blah blah if you are good is so childish, like u get candy if u r good
The problem with Hinduism is that it dwells on the path to unity but doesn't seem to bother with do I want this unity with God? And for me it directly ties in with why God created the Universe?
I know I am flooding you but I am kinda... desperate.
============================================================
On Thu, 15 Jul 1999 I wrote:
Pegarding concept of "only one universe".... look at page entitled "Black Holes, Lord Krsna's Pearls "
======================================
I was talking with a friend a while ago and asked him this same question regarding creation and he said the even Brahman must do karma and he said that there was proof of this in a verse in the Gita when Krishna is in Virat-swarup and tells Arjun that even Brahman must do karma and thus he creates and destroys. I looked for the verse in the copy of the Gita I had and could not find it. Maybe I have a bad translation or did not look carefully enough (I have that problem-too much skimming)? I will look again.
You speak of our souls being "sparks" of Brahman, I loooooooooove that. Then my question is... why does Brahman frizzle and crackle (partly j/k) I understand that is hard to answer.
That karma applies to Brahman is nice. Since we are part of God and we are bound to do karma so even the Supreme should be bound by that. But one attains, jivanmukti only when the karma they do has no consequence (u know I do not understand the idea of an action having no consequence, do you have a webpage on that?). So I would think Gods karma has no consequence.
Any thoughts?
================================================================
Ok, so Brahman is beyond karmic consequence... but he does perform karma right?
But still, why bother creating... sometimes in your webpages you talk about a causal universe and at other times about spontaneity-i.e. sparks. If I were Brahman, in supreme bliss and absolute equanimity with good and evil, truth and untruth, all duality, why would I want to exert a part of me and make a part of myself not realize this equanimity and ingrain this part with an urge to evolve, to look for this equanimity and eventually return to my Supreme self? Do I not know that I am in perfect equanimity that I must go through this process?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote:
I suppose i could offer you a typical Vaishnav answer from Srimad Bhagavatam,..... sort of a Hare Krsna answer.... namely, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Primal Lord, (Krsna), is beyond karmic consequences, and there are passages in Gita which indicate this.... but that other Demigods like Indra, Bramha, etc.... are Deities who are subject to Karma.... there is a story about someone experiencing a vision of millions of ants,.... passing through a palace, and it was revealed that each of those ants had, in a previous birth, been Lord Indra, and "in charge" of a universe.....
====================================
I just read your page "A hard day online" You are GOOD man. Haha. But I learnt a lot. My roomate in college 1 year ago is Christian, I don't know whether protestant, I had asked him what denomination and he told me something real long anyways one day he mentioned out of the blue... "Jews are bad, they smell they dont take baths." I was surprised. Now that comes to my mind again after reading your page.
You mentioned on that page that it is a thankless job and someone has got to do it. Well, I am sure many have said this but, thank you. Thank you very much for what you have done.
Regarding what u wrote below. A circle is perfect because it has no jagged edges? I don't know. What do you mean by "Why did it set out in the first place..." ?
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote:
If a perfect circle returns to the point from which it started, why did it set out in the first place.... and why is it "perfect".....
God is an infinite circle, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere
===========================================
I have decided to think about what you said before responding in anyway. I am going to go through some webpages, look for that verse from the Gita and look at the verses in the Rig Veda on creation (Purusha and Prakriti sacrifice). I have to get a better understanding of Maya for I have a feeling that this Universe is Maya and since my concern is with the creation of Maya (for I am comfortable with the idea that we are part of the Supreme). Now, why create Maya and we get separated from the Supreme, I want to concentrate on Maya for a while.
I was supposed to write a profile on Keshab Chandra Sen, social revolutionary in India born in 1834. He was very attracted to the west and was blamed of being too sympathetic toward Christianity. I also have to go to a info session on Kashmir tomorrow.
=================================================================
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999 I wrote
Why does Brahman cast out the phenomenal universe, as a spider castes out its web..... only to draw it back to Himself, and what does He catch in this web of Maya?
And what does the circle enclose?
The reason I can see is that Brahman wants the sparks that have left Brahman to return. Does this make sense?
Then the question I asked in one of the previous emails, why does Brahman crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks?
Please help... ============================================================
In a message dated 7/19/99 11:20:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Siddhartha writes
{ The reason I can see is that Brahman wants the sparks that have left Brahman to return. Does this make sense? Then the question I asked in one of the previous emails, why does Brahman crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks? }
=============================== (my reply)
I have been thinking about your most excellent question, namely, why does ANY OF THIS take place to begin with.... or... as you put it... why does Brahman "crackle and fizzle and give out these sparks"......
Of course, you are asking about the very fountainhead of all CAUSALITY.
I recently read that Physicists have discovered sub-atomic "EVENTS" which are PURELY SPONTANEOUS, i.e., have no other cause, but are CAUSELESS.
Of course, I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, so I must take the word of documentaries regarding such discoveries.
But it is interesting that scientists have found in Nature what truly seems to be CAUSELESS sparks or events.
Funny how the word "causeless" makes me think of Lord Chaitanya's words "Causeless Mercy" in Vaishnav writings.
The only other help thing I have found concerning the reason for this "crackling" and "fizzling", is on page 2 of my website... the words of Meher Baba which I quote....
I enjoy hearing from you....
Please do write again, even if only to tell me news about your life and thoughts...
Not everything that we write has to be of a profound religious or philosophical nature.
========================================
It is your very words below that I echo back to you when I speak of the circle, why does it set out, if its nature is to return to itself?
{ But still, why bother creating... sometimes in your webpages you talk about a causal universe and at other times about spontaneity-i.e. sparks. If I were Brahman, in supreme bliss and absolute equanimity with good and evil, truth and untruth, all duality, why would I want to exert a part of me and make a part of myself not realize this equanimity and ingrain this part with an urge to evolve, to look for this equanimity and eventually return to my Supreme self? Do I not know that I am in perfect equanimity that I must go through this process?}
Why does Brahman cast out the phenomenal universe, as a spider castes out its web..... only to draw it back to Himself, and what does He catch in this web of Maya?
And what does the circle enclose?
================================
if a perfect circle returns to the point from which it started, why did it set out in the first place.... and why is it "perfect".....
God is an infinite circle, whose center is everywhere, and whose circumference is nowhere
=======================================
I suppose i could offer you a typical Vaishnav answer from Srimad Bhagavatam,..... sort of a Hare Krsna answer.... namely, that the Supreme Personality of Godhead and Primal Lord, (Krsna), is beyond karmic consequences, and there are passages in Gita which indicate this.... but that other Demigods like Indra, Bramha, etc.... are Dieties who are subject to Karma.... there is a story about someone experiencing a vision of millions of ants,.... passing through a palace, and it was revealed that each of those ants had, in a previous birth, been Lord Indra, and "in charge" of a universe.....
==========================
One of the best answers I have encountered, was a little passage written by Meher Baba, which I reprint on Page 2 of my website..... have a look at that page 2 dialogue.... and then we can talk some more..... these are not easy questions, and I certainly do not have all the answers, anymore than anyone else does..... what was that passage in the Upanishads which said,.... "Perhaps Brahman knows, or perhaps Brahman is unawares..... " it is the first page in my paperback edition translated by (I think) Sarvapali Rhadakrishnan, I don't have it in front of me at the moment... it is such a startlingly open-minded and honest point of view in an ancient scripture....
On Miracles and Faith
Consider the following similar verses, and ask yourself where in scripture someone is brought to faith or made to believe through witnessing some extraordinary supernatural event.
Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Compare:
Luk 10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
What these verses are saying is that there was something Jesus COULD have done to bring certain people in certain towns to repentance, but, for whatever reason, Jesus chose NOT to do it. Jesus wants each person to do their own thing. Sure, Jesus could have shown up at Zaccheus' house, in a whirlwind, zapping lightening bolts. But what happens? Zaccheus, encumbered by the crowds, climbs a tree to get a better view of Jesus. Jesus looks up and sees Zaccheus, and is impressed by such enthusiasm and ingenuity.
If you climb up that proverbial tree, then, surely, metaphorically, you shall have Jesus at your dinner table, and Buddha, and Krishna, or whatever it is that you envision God or Holiness to be.
...
Now, when Jesus tells Nathaniel that "I saw you under the fig tree..", i.e. knowing something that Nathaniel felt no one else could possibly know, then Nathaniel exclaimed something about Jesus being the promised one.
The same with the Samaritan woman at the well. When Jesus revealed his knowledge that she had had a number of men, and the man she was with was not her husband, she too seemed brought to intense belief.
But, consider the Pharaoh and his magicians in Egypt, during the 10 plagues. After the fourth plague, when the magicians could no longer reproduce the illusion, the magicians exclaimed to Pharaoh "surely this is the finger of God." But, Pharaoh was hard of heart and never believed.
We know that the apostles, and presumably Judas Iscariot, had some power to drive out demons, for they ask Christ why they had failed to drive out a certain demon, whereupon Christ explains that some demons are driven out only by much fasting and prayer. Yet, whatever wondrous things Judas may have experienced, Judas does not seem to have faith.
Also Luke Ch. 10:
Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.'
We hear Jesus tell an apostle, "leave the dead to bury the dead." One can only assume that Jesus means the "spiritually dead."
Even the powerful of the synagogue and government, ask to see some miracle. But, their requests are motivated by a lurid curiosity to see something unusual. Such people would not have been spiritually transformed by seeing a miracle. In fact, stop and think about the first miracle of transforming water to wine at the marriage in Cana. Only the servants realized what had happened. The people who drank the wine had no idea.
Consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man asks Abraham to send someone back from the dead, to warn his family who is still living. Abraham answers something to the effect that "you have Moses and the Prophets, so if you pay no attention to them, then you would not take heed even if someone were to return from the dead."
...
What I am trying to get at, in this blog, is the notion that those who are spiritually dead cannot be raised and given faith.
What do we read? "IF you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed.... " This implies that you have a teeny bit of faith to start with. Jesus does not go around zapping people with lightening bolts of faith. In fact, when Jesus first approaches John the Baptist, in the crowd, John the Baptist says, "There is in your midst one whom you know not." Jesus did not float ten feet in the air, and glow like a neon sign.
I think it is in Ch 9, verse 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita, where it says "the wicked do not recognize me when I take human form."
Jesus does not bash people over the head with words either.
He says, "search the scriptures, for therein will you find eternal life."
Jesus does not tell us which verses to read.
Jesus tells one man, "You are not far from the kingdom..." Jesus does not give him a Mapquest print-out of how to get to "the kingdom."
When one man asks Jesus, "Oh good master, what must I do to gain eternal life?" Look at how interesting the very first reply is: "Why do YOU call ME good, since there is none good save God?" Now, Jesus does not forbid the man and say "DO NOT call ME good, since only God is good!" No. Jesus asks the man a deep question, which flys right over his head. If we look at this first reply in a certain fashion, then it would seem that Jesus is dropping a hint that he IS God. Except Jesus never tells people things, but rather asks questions and invites. But let us see what Jesus says next: "Keep all of the commandments." Well, the man protests and says, "But, I have kept the commandments from my youth up! What more is lacking!" Now, look at how interesting the next verse is. It says, "Then, Jesus LOVED him, and said..... " Search the Bible sometime, and tell me how many places it mentions Jesus LOVING (not God, mind you, but Jesus). Now, here is an important thing. Jesus ALREADY KNEW that this man was a wealthy man, and would not be able to follow the next advice. "If you would be PERFECT, then sell all that you have, give it to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me." That man went away sore grieved. But, wait... since clearly Jesus already KNEW that the man was wealthy, and would walk away,... well, why does Jesus tell him such advice.
Now, by contrast, Moses was one scary dude. His staff became a snake. He turned water to blood. Transgressors, such as Miriam, were stricken with leprosy.
Moses works wonders, but they are destructive wonders. We see the Prophet Elias raise the widows dead son. We see the disciple of Elias, Eliseus, feed a multitude (2Kings 4) by a miracle of multiplication of loaves of bread. And we see Eliseus cure the leprosy of Naaman. It is only gradually in the Old Testament that miracles become healing and nourishing, rather then destructive.
We can find a key to understand something of these mysteries if we look at two parables: the parable of the talents, and the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
One man receives 5 talents. A second man receives 2 talents. A third man receives only one talent. Substitute for faith for talent, the "gift of faith".
Now, each man has free will choice regarding what he will or will not do with the talents, during his term of stewardship. In our parable, the man with one talent chooses only to bury it. When the master returns, the man said, "There, you have what is yours." Perhaps this is that person who is given a human birth, life, health, in a free society, in an historical period of peace and prosperity, but, does nothing with that life and opportunity. In the German foreign film, Zentropa, an idealist young German American, goes to Germany right after WWII to help with the reconstruction. He sees an old catholic priest and asks "Father, since both sides prayed to God, and both sides cannot be right, how does God decide." The old priest says, "God looks at the warmth (zeal) of each heart." "If you are neither hot nor cold, then I spew you out of my mouth."
Ok, so the guy with the one talent screwed up. The people with the 5 and 2 talents pleased the master, by doing something with their talents, to make INCREASE (which, by the way, my dear friends, is WORKS).
But, tell me. Why does one man receive FIVE talents, and the other only TWO talents? They are both good people. They both do the right thing. AND, we are told nothing about those who received NO talents.
Now, regarding the parable of the laborers, some were hired at early morning. Others were hired at later times in the afternoon. Some were only called in the last hour. All received only the penny wage, and a few complained. But what of those who were NEVER hired, never called, never given even one talent?
Think about it!
What can we deduce from all of this?
One thing, perhaps, is that it does no good to whine and nag God, to "fix everything" and make things better.
What good does it do those workers in the vineyard, who nag and whine that they receive the same wage as those who only worked the last hour of the day? I mean that was YOUR deal with your employer. YOU agreed to work from morning until night for a penny. So, what business is it of yours if the master chooses to give the same wage to those who only came around in the final hour. We nurse resentment out of our false sense of entitlement.
The guy who got only one talent can't whine and nag that he did not get ten talents. The master is GONE, out of town, NOT AVAILABLE, do not disturb. Besides, if he DID get ten talents instead of one, then, he would have buried TEN talents, and pissed off the master even MORE.
Ok, but, if the master, who gives the talents and disappears, is really the all knowing God, who ALREADY knows what each person will do with what they are given, then, why does the master even bother to give that one fellow the one talent in the first place?
This discussion naturally leads to another discussions, which I have posted some while back, entitled The River Of Fire and The Gift Of Faith.
...
Perhaps each of us has not received in equal measure. The why of this inequality is an eternal mystery. But then, the "Our Father" prayer does say "they KINGDOM come" and not "thy democracy" or "thy socialist state". But the fact remains that each of us has received much. We have been given a court, a net, rackets, plenty of tennis balls, and a nice polo shirt and shorts. The ball is now in OUR court.
The ball is in YOUR court.
Mat 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
Compare:
Luk 10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
What these verses are saying is that there was something Jesus COULD have done to bring certain people in certain towns to repentance, but, for whatever reason, Jesus chose NOT to do it. Jesus wants each person to do their own thing. Sure, Jesus could have shown up at Zaccheus' house, in a whirlwind, zapping lightening bolts. But what happens? Zaccheus, encumbered by the crowds, climbs a tree to get a better view of Jesus. Jesus looks up and sees Zaccheus, and is impressed by such enthusiasm and ingenuity.
If you climb up that proverbial tree, then, surely, metaphorically, you shall have Jesus at your dinner table, and Buddha, and Krishna, or whatever it is that you envision God or Holiness to be.
...
Now, when Jesus tells Nathaniel that "I saw you under the fig tree..", i.e. knowing something that Nathaniel felt no one else could possibly know, then Nathaniel exclaimed something about Jesus being the promised one.
The same with the Samaritan woman at the well. When Jesus revealed his knowledge that she had had a number of men, and the man she was with was not her husband, she too seemed brought to intense belief.
But, consider the Pharaoh and his magicians in Egypt, during the 10 plagues. After the fourth plague, when the magicians could no longer reproduce the illusion, the magicians exclaimed to Pharaoh "surely this is the finger of God." But, Pharaoh was hard of heart and never believed.
We know that the apostles, and presumably Judas Iscariot, had some power to drive out demons, for they ask Christ why they had failed to drive out a certain demon, whereupon Christ explains that some demons are driven out only by much fasting and prayer. Yet, whatever wondrous things Judas may have experienced, Judas does not seem to have faith.
Also Luke Ch. 10:
Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you; heal the sick in it and say to them, `The kingdom of God has come near to you.'
We hear Jesus tell an apostle, "leave the dead to bury the dead." One can only assume that Jesus means the "spiritually dead."
Even the powerful of the synagogue and government, ask to see some miracle. But, their requests are motivated by a lurid curiosity to see something unusual. Such people would not have been spiritually transformed by seeing a miracle. In fact, stop and think about the first miracle of transforming water to wine at the marriage in Cana. Only the servants realized what had happened. The people who drank the wine had no idea.
Consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man asks Abraham to send someone back from the dead, to warn his family who is still living. Abraham answers something to the effect that "you have Moses and the Prophets, so if you pay no attention to them, then you would not take heed even if someone were to return from the dead."
...
What I am trying to get at, in this blog, is the notion that those who are spiritually dead cannot be raised and given faith.
What do we read? "IF you have faith the size of a grain of mustard seed.... " This implies that you have a teeny bit of faith to start with. Jesus does not go around zapping people with lightening bolts of faith. In fact, when Jesus first approaches John the Baptist, in the crowd, John the Baptist says, "There is in your midst one whom you know not." Jesus did not float ten feet in the air, and glow like a neon sign.
I think it is in Ch 9, verse 11 of the Bhagavad-Gita, where it says "the wicked do not recognize me when I take human form."
Jesus does not bash people over the head with words either.
He says, "search the scriptures, for therein will you find eternal life."
Jesus does not tell us which verses to read.
Jesus tells one man, "You are not far from the kingdom..." Jesus does not give him a Mapquest print-out of how to get to "the kingdom."
When one man asks Jesus, "Oh good master, what must I do to gain eternal life?" Look at how interesting the very first reply is: "Why do YOU call ME good, since there is none good save God?" Now, Jesus does not forbid the man and say "DO NOT call ME good, since only God is good!" No. Jesus asks the man a deep question, which flys right over his head. If we look at this first reply in a certain fashion, then it would seem that Jesus is dropping a hint that he IS God. Except Jesus never tells people things, but rather asks questions and invites. But let us see what Jesus says next: "Keep all of the commandments." Well, the man protests and says, "But, I have kept the commandments from my youth up! What more is lacking!" Now, look at how interesting the next verse is. It says, "Then, Jesus LOVED him, and said..... " Search the Bible sometime, and tell me how many places it mentions Jesus LOVING (not God, mind you, but Jesus). Now, here is an important thing. Jesus ALREADY KNEW that this man was a wealthy man, and would not be able to follow the next advice. "If you would be PERFECT, then sell all that you have, give it to the poor, take up your cross, and follow me." That man went away sore grieved. But, wait... since clearly Jesus already KNEW that the man was wealthy, and would walk away,... well, why does Jesus tell him such advice.
Now, by contrast, Moses was one scary dude. His staff became a snake. He turned water to blood. Transgressors, such as Miriam, were stricken with leprosy.
Moses works wonders, but they are destructive wonders. We see the Prophet Elias raise the widows dead son. We see the disciple of Elias, Eliseus, feed a multitude (2Kings 4) by a miracle of multiplication of loaves of bread. And we see Eliseus cure the leprosy of Naaman. It is only gradually in the Old Testament that miracles become healing and nourishing, rather then destructive.
We can find a key to understand something of these mysteries if we look at two parables: the parable of the talents, and the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
One man receives 5 talents. A second man receives 2 talents. A third man receives only one talent. Substitute for faith for talent, the "gift of faith".
Now, each man has free will choice regarding what he will or will not do with the talents, during his term of stewardship. In our parable, the man with one talent chooses only to bury it. When the master returns, the man said, "There, you have what is yours." Perhaps this is that person who is given a human birth, life, health, in a free society, in an historical period of peace and prosperity, but, does nothing with that life and opportunity. In the German foreign film, Zentropa, an idealist young German American, goes to Germany right after WWII to help with the reconstruction. He sees an old catholic priest and asks "Father, since both sides prayed to God, and both sides cannot be right, how does God decide." The old priest says, "God looks at the warmth (zeal) of each heart." "If you are neither hot nor cold, then I spew you out of my mouth."
Ok, so the guy with the one talent screwed up. The people with the 5 and 2 talents pleased the master, by doing something with their talents, to make INCREASE (which, by the way, my dear friends, is WORKS).
But, tell me. Why does one man receive FIVE talents, and the other only TWO talents? They are both good people. They both do the right thing. AND, we are told nothing about those who received NO talents.
Now, regarding the parable of the laborers, some were hired at early morning. Others were hired at later times in the afternoon. Some were only called in the last hour. All received only the penny wage, and a few complained. But what of those who were NEVER hired, never called, never given even one talent?
Think about it!
What can we deduce from all of this?
One thing, perhaps, is that it does no good to whine and nag God, to "fix everything" and make things better.
What good does it do those workers in the vineyard, who nag and whine that they receive the same wage as those who only worked the last hour of the day? I mean that was YOUR deal with your employer. YOU agreed to work from morning until night for a penny. So, what business is it of yours if the master chooses to give the same wage to those who only came around in the final hour. We nurse resentment out of our false sense of entitlement.
The guy who got only one talent can't whine and nag that he did not get ten talents. The master is GONE, out of town, NOT AVAILABLE, do not disturb. Besides, if he DID get ten talents instead of one, then, he would have buried TEN talents, and pissed off the master even MORE.
Ok, but, if the master, who gives the talents and disappears, is really the all knowing God, who ALREADY knows what each person will do with what they are given, then, why does the master even bother to give that one fellow the one talent in the first place?
This discussion naturally leads to another discussions, which I have posted some while back, entitled The River Of Fire and The Gift Of Faith.
...
Perhaps each of us has not received in equal measure. The why of this inequality is an eternal mystery. But then, the "Our Father" prayer does say "they KINGDOM come" and not "thy democracy" or "thy socialist state". But the fact remains that each of us has received much. We have been given a court, a net, rackets, plenty of tennis balls, and a nice polo shirt and shorts. The ball is now in OUR court.
The ball is in YOUR court.
Coffee
The freshman across the hall from me at St. John's Annapolis, 1967, had never tasted coffee in his life, and decided to have a cup after dinner. HE STAYED AWAKE ALL NIGHT!
I started drinking coffee with my mother when I was age 10. Junior High through High, I drank a lot of coffee to stay alert and study.
A Mormon businessman who visited us said "no thanks" to our coffee pot, but, at lunch time, ordered a Coke. I whispered to him that coke has caffeine. He laughed and said "Oh, I am not THAT strict."
My senior year at St. Johns, in 1970-71, I got a little espresso pot. I drank too much one evening and felt my heart pounding. I have always tested ok even now at age 59 with regard to cardiovascular.
If someone were to tell me that coffee has deprived me of an extra 10 years of life, I would have no regrets. Besides, the years it would steal are those stinking years, in your 70s or 80s.
My mom was such a coffee drinker all her life. She was in a nursing home for a month or so, because of a broken wrist. I traveled 3 hours to pick her up and take her home. The VERY FIRST thing she wanted was to stop at a 7-11 store on the way, and have a cup of coffee. She slurped it greedily. I guess they had crummy coffee, or no coffee or sanka at that damn nursing home.
I started drinking coffee with my mother when I was age 10. Junior High through High, I drank a lot of coffee to stay alert and study.
A Mormon businessman who visited us said "no thanks" to our coffee pot, but, at lunch time, ordered a Coke. I whispered to him that coke has caffeine. He laughed and said "Oh, I am not THAT strict."
My senior year at St. Johns, in 1970-71, I got a little espresso pot. I drank too much one evening and felt my heart pounding. I have always tested ok even now at age 59 with regard to cardiovascular.
If someone were to tell me that coffee has deprived me of an extra 10 years of life, I would have no regrets. Besides, the years it would steal are those stinking years, in your 70s or 80s.
My mom was such a coffee drinker all her life. She was in a nursing home for a month or so, because of a broken wrist. I traveled 3 hours to pick her up and take her home. The VERY FIRST thing she wanted was to stop at a 7-11 store on the way, and have a cup of coffee. She slurped it greedily. I guess they had crummy coffee, or no coffee or sanka at that damn nursing home.
Do you regret meeting anyone?
Supposedly, Abraham Lincoln said "I never met a man I didn't like"
Woody Allen said, "My only regret is that I wasn't someone else."
There are times in my life when I regretted meeting my parents, but that is one of those fated events which are difficult to avoid.
Woody Allen said, "My only regret is that I wasn't someone else."
There are times in my life when I regretted meeting my parents, but that is one of those fated events which are difficult to avoid.
The Pursuit of Happiness
My wife is addicted to the weekly series "Gilmore Girls". I did not care for it at first, but she purchased an entire season on DVD,... so I sat and watched it with her, to be sociable, for 4 hours straight. Some things are acquired tastes, like ripe olives, sharp cheeses, strong whiskey and pipe tobacco.
Anyway, one main character, Luke Danes, owns and runs a lunch counter. He is always wearing a backwards baseball cap (except in a few bedroom scenes).
I am leading up to my point.
In several episodes, he has taken in a young man aged 20. One day, the young man, frustrated about something, makes a negative remark about the lunch counter/restaurant business. The owner/cook makes an interesting answer: "You should be grateful if you had such a business. I may work many hours at this, but I am my own boss, answer to no one, and make a decent living. No one can fire me or force me into early retirement."
I paraphrase what I can remember of his lines. But what he answered is the plus side of the small business entrepreneur in a nutshell.
We are, all of us, throughout all history, seeking "the better way", to avoid suffering and pursue happiness.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
"Seek pleasure. Avoid pain." This is a wisdom of all living creatures, down to protozoa.
Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, Marx, Hitler and Dale Carnegie, to mention only a few, have all addressed the manner and methods of this pursuit of happiness with different techniques but a similar goal.
"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to loose but your chains."
"I come to bring you life, and life more abundant."
"Win friends and influence people."
"Philosophy is a preparation for death."
"Work Shall Make You Free."
"O builder of this house on fire with desires, my body! I have discovered thee! This house thou shalt never rebuild! Thy rafters all are broken now, And pointed roof in ruins lies! This mind has reached this demolition, and seen the last of all desire, the cause of all suffering!"
"Seek refuge from malignant witchcraft; from the evil, sneaking whisperer."
"They who are obedient shall all attain unto welfare."
Camus, in his "Myth of Sisyphus", concludes that even Sisyphus may find some measure of existential happiness, during those moments that he walks back down the hill, to begin his eternal labor anew.
Viktor Frankel managed to find some measure of happiness even in a concentration camp. Frankel said "Our final freedom, which no one can rob, is our inner freedom to choose how we shall regard those circumstances in our life which we cannot change." (paraphrased)
He lost everything, he said, that could be taken from a prisoner, except one thing; "the last of the human freedoms, to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
William Ernest Henley
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeoning of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
In the final chapter of Camus' "The Stranger", we see the state of mind of Merseult, as he awaits execution.
Mersault is in his prison cell reflecting on his life and upcoming death. He remembers the time when his father went to an execution.
He remembers seeing a picture of an execution in the newspaper. He thinks about the shiny guillotine and calls it an efficient killing machine.
Mersault dreams about escaping the guillotine. He imagines fleeing from prison and being shot in the marketplace, which he feels would be a preferable death. He also imagines winning his appeal and being set free. He knows, however, that a man destined for execution has no hope of freedom.
The chaplain represents the religious and spiritual side of man, expecting forgiveness and believing in an afterlife. In contrast, Mersault is secular and down to earth. He is not devoid of emotion or imagination, but his perspective towards life is based on facts, not on hope that blindfolds the truth. As a result, Mersault is able to accept the absoluteness of his verdict, calling it a "brutal certitude." He does, however, believe that his execution will prove the absurdity of life. It is appropriate that Mersault will die an absurd death, for throughout the book he has been developed as an absurd man, living with detachment and lacking conventional values.
Mersault expresses no regret for his actions and refuses to ask for forgiveness. In fact when the Chaplain wants to pray for his soul, Mersault screams at him. However, after the Chaplain leaves, Mersault has an unusual sense of peace and calm, which allows him to sleep. When he wakes, he listens for the dawn, as usual, and wonders if this will be the day of his execution. He realizes, however, that he does not fear death; instead, he will welcome it as a chance to finally be in harmony with the indifferent universe.
The word "equanimity" comes to my mind; an evenly balanced spirit, like the keel of a great ship, which steadies its course through the roughest sea.
It is never hard to find extremely wealthy and successful people who are morbidly unhappy: Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Ernest Hemingway, to name but a few. They cannot find happiness in their fame or wealth, in sexual pleasure or intoxicants.
We can also find people who live very simple lives, but find happiness in the smallest thing, in a leaf or a feather swirling in the wind, like a Forrest Gump.
Odysseus escaped certain death at the hands of Cyclops by calling himself "No-Man". Postmodern man is a no-man become Everyman.
If you ever have the opportunity to watch the movie version of Somerset Maugham's "The Razor's Edge", you will see a young man who is restless and in pursuit of happiness.
He travels about the world, and rubs shoulders with dockworkers and transients. He plays cards with an unusual man who occasionally cheats. One day, he asks that man what he is running away from. The old man answers, that there is someone who relentlessly pursues him. "Well, why don't you face your pursuer. Perhaps prison or death would be better than constantly running away. The old man replies, "It is no person who pursues me. You see, I was a priest, but I left my vocation. It is God who pursues me with forgiveness. That is what I cannot endure and seek to escape." (paraphrased from memory).
The old priest tells him of a holy man in India. In real life, that man was Ramana Maharshi. Maugham visited the guru in India and based his novel on that visit.
At the end of the movie, the holy man sends our hero up on a lonely mountain, to dwell in a hut in solitude. After weeks, the guru climbs the mountain, with long beard, and staff in hand, as we imagine Moses, to visit the American. Our hero has achieved his vision of enlightenment, a feeling at dawn, seeing the sun rising.
The guru explains that the American must return now, to daily life, and carry with him always the memory of this moment of enlightenment.
Together they descend the mountain, just as Sisyphus, to begin that futile task of daily life once again, but now, with a vision, a memory, a choice, a freedom in our exile on death row, awaiting our unavoidable death sentence.
Until recent times, to be alone, yet speak out, was often called prayer; nowadays, it is often called posting on the Internet.
Someone once asked psychologist Alfred Adler, after one of his lectures, "Dr. Adler! But what of God? What do you say about God?" Dr. Adler simply replied, "I would hope, if there is a God, that God would be pleased with the way I have lived my life." Dr. Adler's words were prayer in a sense. Publishing on the web is often prayer for me.
We cannot prove to ourselves or others that God exists, nor prove that there is no God. We do not need to prove to ourselves or anyone that we exist. We each have a life, and we have choices. Each waking moment we are faced with a kind of moral dilemma: "What shall I do next." Few moments become monuments, other than a first footstep upon the moon's surface, or a gunshot in Ford's Theater. But, a myriad of moment to moment decisions can add up to something monumentally good and saintly, or notoriously evil, or simply add up to a life of wasted time and lost opportunities.
Often, the greatest virtue can be found in the agnostic who has bypassed God as middle-man to goodness.
I awoke on this first morning of 2006 with the thought "I hope my life is pleasing."
I so often think of various old saying from India:
"A saint can see saintliness in even the worst of sinners, but a sinner can see sinfulness in even the holiest saint."
"When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are pockets."
"If a woman is my elder, I must treat her as my mother. If she is my peer, I must treat her as my sister. If she is younger, I must treat her as my daughter."
Epilogue:
In a chat room, this morning, someone complained of boredom.
I replied, "People who are bored have no one to blame but themselves. If you are bored, you can find something interesting to read or learn or discuss, and can share with other bored people."
Boredom is sibling to sloth.
Soliloquy is an actor speaking aloud to himself. The audience hears, but the character is unaware of their presence.
An early symptom of postmodernism is when the actor explicitly addresses the audience, and when an author pauses in his narrative to speak directly to the reader as reader.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Technology
For centuries, prior to 1940's, when penicillin was invented,
individuals would die from various infections, or illnesses, sometimes
at an early age, BUT the entire race, the species, was very strong,
hardy, durable, resilient, precisely because any weakness or infirmity
died off at an early age, or even in infancy, hence the survivors and
their children were very resistant to disease.... BUT...
In past 100 years,... medicine and surgery has allowed even the
weakest and sickliest, to survive to adulthood and to have children....
THEREFORE, the individual is now better off, BUT the human species
becomes weaker as a group, more dependent on antibiotics and
surgery to survive...
The weaker modern species of man, in highly civilized societies, can
no longer take a drink from a stream, without getting a disease, but
must have water from bottles, especially purified...
Think how healthy the native American Indian was, in the wild, for
centuries, before the European came, with no medicine or health care
or surgery...
NOW,.... carry the analogy across, to the IMAGINATIONS and minds of
previous centuries, who did not have audiovisual, and video games,
and cell phones,... and internet, bombarding them, with amusement,
or what to think
When I was a child, there were no google search
engines, or internet,.... and a school homework assignment, in history
for example, would send us to the library, to search the card catalog,
and the encyclopedias, and the indexes of many books...
in order to answer the questions of the assignment..
In 8th grade,... I spent a weekend trying to find information about "The
Concordat of Worms,Germany"...
Today, a child simply does google search, and then, cuts and pastes
information...
We see the mind become more passive, lazy, less motivated to dig
and search....
This is not true of everyone, of course, but certainly is true of many.
Technology and medicine may weaken us in one respect, but
strengthen us in another...
When firearms and guns were invented, one person commented "the
rifle has made every tailor into a warrior"
A movie was made of the life of Malcom X, our civil rights leader, and I
think in that movie, it said "When the European came to Africa, the
white man had the Bible and the black man had the land, and when
the black man left Africa, the black man had the Bible and the white
man had the land." This saying was very powerful in the media,
catching the attention of the public audiences.
So... here is an example of audiovisual media working in a positive
manner with regard to social injustice
A knife in the hands of a skilled surgeon does great good, but in the
hands of a bad surgeon, or a criminal, it does much harm
Any tool may be used either as an instrument of good or evil
There is a book in the USA which documents the portrayal and
depiction of blacks during the 19th and 20th century...
In the 19th century, blacks were portrayed in drawings and posters in
a very negative fashion,.... portrayed as clowns, or rascals, or very
simple
But, you see, since the civil rights movies of the 1960s, gradually
blacks entered into the media portraying doctors, lawyers, judges and
politicians...
So you see, now, media teaches the general public to see the charm
and beauty of Woopie Goldberg , for example, or the wisdom of Oprah
Winfree, or the authority of Condoleezza Rice
So.... the image and perception of blacks, and also of women in
general, is benefited by the changes in the use of audiovisual media
tools
But, of course, media and audiovisual was used by the Nazis in
Germany to portray the Jew as socially undesirable, evil, etc
Nowadays, the plots of our television and movie dramas echo and
explore the current events...
One sees, for example, nowadays, many stories and fictional dramas
now involving Arab terrorists...
BBC in Britain produced a television drama about a "dirty bomb"
exploding in England....
At the end of the movie, they catch an Arab terrorist who is
responsible... and he says some chilling words.... cant remember
exactly... but something like "it is the fear/terror which UNITES us
Muslims and divides YOU non-Muslims"
So, we see how media can set a "spin" upon our understanding of
current events and world events, by concentrating on dramatizations
of certain themes
"I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam. I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me." --Woody Allen
My parents were together at a Woolworth's Department store, in the months before the U.S. entered World War II. He was lonely, and sincerely believed that he would never come back alive.
They had been together at one store, and my father was promoted and transferred to another store. One day, he was working in the stock room, and they told him "there is someone upstairs to see you." My mother had come to visit him. He told me that, if that had not happened, he would never have seen her again.
I am getting ready for work right now, Monday morning, so, there is not time for much more comment, though I feel I have much to say, so I shall repost at my blog, and add and edit my thoughts.
I will remark that I believe it is true that there are some people who are wise not to marry. I am not saying that you are one of those people. But I know of people, both men and women, who have stayed single throughout their life, and seem to be happier for that decision.
There is no single right or wrong way to live one's life. I don't think marriage is for everyone. And I don't think college degrees are for everyone. Just because one never marries does not have to mean that one never knows love. Just because one never earns a bachelor's degree does not have to mean that one never reads and learns.
Can you play the role of GOD in my life, please ?
From: geetanjali
Sent: Mon 10/23/06 6:48 PM
Respected & Dear Friend,
Reading your words online-literature.com has been a gratifying experience for me. I presume you must be a scholar & a renunciant in its most true sense. I am not a technosavy person, but your threads keep me on the internet for a few hours every month. Could you please do me the favour of keeping in touch with either by this e-mail or through post? I will be delighted if you respond positively because only a true devotee of GOD can write as well as you do. There is so much in books but reading you has been for me---reading the distilled essence of religion & life.
If you are agreeable to communication , I wish to introduce myself in my next letter.But as of now please know that am a devotee of GOD who wishes to know him better. I am in the pre-nursery & you are a PHD when it comes to both GOD & the Internet. If you choose to respond to me then you have to bear the infirmities of an amature. Thank you.
Eagerly awaiting for your reply, Geetanjali
...
Geetanjali and I have corresponded since that time. I have often tried to explain to her that I am not some saintly renunciate seated in saffron robes before a keyboard. If I have a certain "knack" for writing about certain things, then it all has very much to do with me being a parrot who repeats things which he has read and heard from others.
...
There is a tradition in India of people choosing someone as guru, and venerating them as a kind of representative of the divine. The phrase "God by proxy" comes to my mind as a way to describe this practice.
Americans readily use the term "idol" to describe stars like "Elvis Presley." People who become devoted to such an idol may even create a shrine of photos, statues and various memorabilia.
The Greek Orthodox Christian monastic tradition allows for a monastic to place themselves under obedience to an "elder" (Staretz in the Russian tradition). Obedience to the "elder" is a sort of role play, one might say. If Jesus were physically present, then the monastic would place themselves under obedience to Jesus.
In the Greek Orthodox liturgy, it is the Bishop who, when fully vested, becomes the "living icon" of Christ. A priest will incense the icon of Christ on the Iconostasis three times, but a serving bishop is incensed NINE times, because he is a flesh and blood icon, rather than an image of wood and paint.
Mohandas Gandhi was often beseiged by "darshan seekers", who regarded him as a divine icon or embodiment. I have seen a photograph of Mother Theresa meeting crowds in India, and the expressions of the onlookers were the unique expression of "darshan seekers". One might google on the term darshan and come to understand its unique meaning.
I can honestly say that, 10 years ago, around 1998, when I began to post on the Internet, I never set out to gain individuals as devotees or followers or disciples. I can honestly say that I DID hope to gain a sizable readership for those ideas of mine which I felt had some merit. My hopes were never realized. Perhaps 10,000 people in total, world wide, read what I posted, according to various webpage statistics programs. A scholar once remarked to me that 10,000 was a much larger readership than many scholarly monographs have enjoyed, in the decades prior to the Internet.
A few people were attracted to my personality as some kind of guru, but no one had the persistence and perseverance of Geetanjali.
At first, I was somewhat uncomfortable with the intensity of her admiration.
But, I came to realize that, since she had a desire for personal correspondence, which was certainly in my ability to grant, then, I should accommodate her desire.
After all, in this life, how many times do we find ourselves in a position to make another happy?
When I was in my early teens, I simply idolized Ernest Hemingway. I read "The Old Man and The Sea". I read his autobiographical account of the years in Paris, "Movable Feast." Hemingway's photo, with his beard, looked so wise and rugged. I was certain that I wanted to grow up to be just like Hemingway. And, I was determined to have a beard as well!
I did not know about some of Hemingway's problems.
We all seek out idols in one way or another. For some of us, it may be a sports figure, like Mickey Mantle or Joe DiMaggio.
Even conservative Protestants, who consider the veneration of a cross to be idolatry, will treat the physical book of the Bible in an idolatrous fashion, and sit at the feet of some preacher as a guru.
All children play with dolls.
No one ever completely escapes their inner child.
Anyway, one main character, Luke Danes, owns and runs a lunch counter. He is always wearing a backwards baseball cap (except in a few bedroom scenes).
I am leading up to my point.
In several episodes, he has taken in a young man aged 20. One day, the young man, frustrated about something, makes a negative remark about the lunch counter/restaurant business. The owner/cook makes an interesting answer: "You should be grateful if you had such a business. I may work many hours at this, but I am my own boss, answer to no one, and make a decent living. No one can fire me or force me into early retirement."
I paraphrase what I can remember of his lines. But what he answered is the plus side of the small business entrepreneur in a nutshell.
We are, all of us, throughout all history, seeking "the better way", to avoid suffering and pursue happiness.
"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
"Seek pleasure. Avoid pain." This is a wisdom of all living creatures, down to protozoa.
Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, Marx, Hitler and Dale Carnegie, to mention only a few, have all addressed the manner and methods of this pursuit of happiness with different techniques but a similar goal.
"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to loose but your chains."
"I come to bring you life, and life more abundant."
"Win friends and influence people."
"Philosophy is a preparation for death."
"Work Shall Make You Free."
"O builder of this house on fire with desires, my body! I have discovered thee! This house thou shalt never rebuild! Thy rafters all are broken now, And pointed roof in ruins lies! This mind has reached this demolition, and seen the last of all desire, the cause of all suffering!"
"Seek refuge from malignant witchcraft; from the evil, sneaking whisperer."
"They who are obedient shall all attain unto welfare."
Camus, in his "Myth of Sisyphus", concludes that even Sisyphus may find some measure of existential happiness, during those moments that he walks back down the hill, to begin his eternal labor anew.
Viktor Frankel managed to find some measure of happiness even in a concentration camp. Frankel said "Our final freedom, which no one can rob, is our inner freedom to choose how we shall regard those circumstances in our life which we cannot change." (paraphrased)
He lost everything, he said, that could be taken from a prisoner, except one thing; "the last of the human freedoms, to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."
William Ernest Henley
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeoning of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
In the final chapter of Camus' "The Stranger", we see the state of mind of Merseult, as he awaits execution.
Mersault is in his prison cell reflecting on his life and upcoming death. He remembers the time when his father went to an execution.
He remembers seeing a picture of an execution in the newspaper. He thinks about the shiny guillotine and calls it an efficient killing machine.
Mersault dreams about escaping the guillotine. He imagines fleeing from prison and being shot in the marketplace, which he feels would be a preferable death. He also imagines winning his appeal and being set free. He knows, however, that a man destined for execution has no hope of freedom.
The chaplain represents the religious and spiritual side of man, expecting forgiveness and believing in an afterlife. In contrast, Mersault is secular and down to earth. He is not devoid of emotion or imagination, but his perspective towards life is based on facts, not on hope that blindfolds the truth. As a result, Mersault is able to accept the absoluteness of his verdict, calling it a "brutal certitude." He does, however, believe that his execution will prove the absurdity of life. It is appropriate that Mersault will die an absurd death, for throughout the book he has been developed as an absurd man, living with detachment and lacking conventional values.
Mersault expresses no regret for his actions and refuses to ask for forgiveness. In fact when the Chaplain wants to pray for his soul, Mersault screams at him. However, after the Chaplain leaves, Mersault has an unusual sense of peace and calm, which allows him to sleep. When he wakes, he listens for the dawn, as usual, and wonders if this will be the day of his execution. He realizes, however, that he does not fear death; instead, he will welcome it as a chance to finally be in harmony with the indifferent universe.
The word "equanimity" comes to my mind; an evenly balanced spirit, like the keel of a great ship, which steadies its course through the roughest sea.
It is never hard to find extremely wealthy and successful people who are morbidly unhappy: Kurt Cobain, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, Ernest Hemingway, to name but a few. They cannot find happiness in their fame or wealth, in sexual pleasure or intoxicants.
We can also find people who live very simple lives, but find happiness in the smallest thing, in a leaf or a feather swirling in the wind, like a Forrest Gump.
Odysseus escaped certain death at the hands of Cyclops by calling himself "No-Man". Postmodern man is a no-man become Everyman.
If you ever have the opportunity to watch the movie version of Somerset Maugham's "The Razor's Edge", you will see a young man who is restless and in pursuit of happiness.
He travels about the world, and rubs shoulders with dockworkers and transients. He plays cards with an unusual man who occasionally cheats. One day, he asks that man what he is running away from. The old man answers, that there is someone who relentlessly pursues him. "Well, why don't you face your pursuer. Perhaps prison or death would be better than constantly running away. The old man replies, "It is no person who pursues me. You see, I was a priest, but I left my vocation. It is God who pursues me with forgiveness. That is what I cannot endure and seek to escape." (paraphrased from memory).
The old priest tells him of a holy man in India. In real life, that man was Ramana Maharshi. Maugham visited the guru in India and based his novel on that visit.
At the end of the movie, the holy man sends our hero up on a lonely mountain, to dwell in a hut in solitude. After weeks, the guru climbs the mountain, with long beard, and staff in hand, as we imagine Moses, to visit the American. Our hero has achieved his vision of enlightenment, a feeling at dawn, seeing the sun rising.
The guru explains that the American must return now, to daily life, and carry with him always the memory of this moment of enlightenment.
Together they descend the mountain, just as Sisyphus, to begin that futile task of daily life once again, but now, with a vision, a memory, a choice, a freedom in our exile on death row, awaiting our unavoidable death sentence.
Until recent times, to be alone, yet speak out, was often called prayer; nowadays, it is often called posting on the Internet.
Someone once asked psychologist Alfred Adler, after one of his lectures, "Dr. Adler! But what of God? What do you say about God?" Dr. Adler simply replied, "I would hope, if there is a God, that God would be pleased with the way I have lived my life." Dr. Adler's words were prayer in a sense. Publishing on the web is often prayer for me.
We cannot prove to ourselves or others that God exists, nor prove that there is no God. We do not need to prove to ourselves or anyone that we exist. We each have a life, and we have choices. Each waking moment we are faced with a kind of moral dilemma: "What shall I do next." Few moments become monuments, other than a first footstep upon the moon's surface, or a gunshot in Ford's Theater. But, a myriad of moment to moment decisions can add up to something monumentally good and saintly, or notoriously evil, or simply add up to a life of wasted time and lost opportunities.
Often, the greatest virtue can be found in the agnostic who has bypassed God as middle-man to goodness.
I awoke on this first morning of 2006 with the thought "I hope my life is pleasing."
I so often think of various old saying from India:
"A saint can see saintliness in even the worst of sinners, but a sinner can see sinfulness in even the holiest saint."
"When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are pockets."
"If a woman is my elder, I must treat her as my mother. If she is my peer, I must treat her as my sister. If she is younger, I must treat her as my daughter."
Epilogue:
In a chat room, this morning, someone complained of boredom.
I replied, "People who are bored have no one to blame but themselves. If you are bored, you can find something interesting to read or learn or discuss, and can share with other bored people."
Boredom is sibling to sloth.
Soliloquy is an actor speaking aloud to himself. The audience hears, but the character is unaware of their presence.
An early symptom of postmodernism is when the actor explicitly addresses the audience, and when an author pauses in his narrative to speak directly to the reader as reader.
Strengths & Weaknesses of Technology
For centuries, prior to 1940's, when penicillin was invented,
individuals would die from various infections, or illnesses, sometimes
at an early age, BUT the entire race, the species, was very strong,
hardy, durable, resilient, precisely because any weakness or infirmity
died off at an early age, or even in infancy, hence the survivors and
their children were very resistant to disease.... BUT...
In past 100 years,... medicine and surgery has allowed even the
weakest and sickliest, to survive to adulthood and to have children....
THEREFORE, the individual is now better off, BUT the human species
becomes weaker as a group, more dependent on antibiotics and
surgery to survive...
The weaker modern species of man, in highly civilized societies, can
no longer take a drink from a stream, without getting a disease, but
must have water from bottles, especially purified...
Think how healthy the native American Indian was, in the wild, for
centuries, before the European came, with no medicine or health care
or surgery...
NOW,.... carry the analogy across, to the IMAGINATIONS and minds of
previous centuries, who did not have audiovisual, and video games,
and cell phones,... and internet, bombarding them, with amusement,
or what to think
When I was a child, there were no google search
engines, or internet,.... and a school homework assignment, in history
for example, would send us to the library, to search the card catalog,
and the encyclopedias, and the indexes of many books...
in order to answer the questions of the assignment..
In 8th grade,... I spent a weekend trying to find information about "The
Concordat of Worms,Germany"...
Today, a child simply does google search, and then, cuts and pastes
information...
We see the mind become more passive, lazy, less motivated to dig
and search....
This is not true of everyone, of course, but certainly is true of many.
Technology and medicine may weaken us in one respect, but
strengthen us in another...
When firearms and guns were invented, one person commented "the
rifle has made every tailor into a warrior"
A movie was made of the life of Malcom X, our civil rights leader, and I
think in that movie, it said "When the European came to Africa, the
white man had the Bible and the black man had the land, and when
the black man left Africa, the black man had the Bible and the white
man had the land." This saying was very powerful in the media,
catching the attention of the public audiences.
So... here is an example of audiovisual media working in a positive
manner with regard to social injustice
A knife in the hands of a skilled surgeon does great good, but in the
hands of a bad surgeon, or a criminal, it does much harm
Any tool may be used either as an instrument of good or evil
There is a book in the USA which documents the portrayal and
depiction of blacks during the 19th and 20th century...
In the 19th century, blacks were portrayed in drawings and posters in
a very negative fashion,.... portrayed as clowns, or rascals, or very
simple
But, you see, since the civil rights movies of the 1960s, gradually
blacks entered into the media portraying doctors, lawyers, judges and
politicians...
So you see, now, media teaches the general public to see the charm
and beauty of Woopie Goldberg , for example, or the wisdom of Oprah
Winfree, or the authority of Condoleezza Rice
So.... the image and perception of blacks, and also of women in
general, is benefited by the changes in the use of audiovisual media
tools
But, of course, media and audiovisual was used by the Nazis in
Germany to portray the Jew as socially undesirable, evil, etc
Nowadays, the plots of our television and movie dramas echo and
explore the current events...
One sees, for example, nowadays, many stories and fictional dramas
now involving Arab terrorists...
BBC in Britain produced a television drama about a "dirty bomb"
exploding in England....
At the end of the movie, they catch an Arab terrorist who is
responsible... and he says some chilling words.... cant remember
exactly... but something like "it is the fear/terror which UNITES us
Muslims and divides YOU non-Muslims"
So, we see how media can set a "spin" upon our understanding of
current events and world events, by concentrating on dramatizations
of certain themes
"I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam. I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me." --Woody Allen
My parents were together at a Woolworth's Department store, in the months before the U.S. entered World War II. He was lonely, and sincerely believed that he would never come back alive.
They had been together at one store, and my father was promoted and transferred to another store. One day, he was working in the stock room, and they told him "there is someone upstairs to see you." My mother had come to visit him. He told me that, if that had not happened, he would never have seen her again.
I am getting ready for work right now, Monday morning, so, there is not time for much more comment, though I feel I have much to say, so I shall repost at my blog, and add and edit my thoughts.
I will remark that I believe it is true that there are some people who are wise not to marry. I am not saying that you are one of those people. But I know of people, both men and women, who have stayed single throughout their life, and seem to be happier for that decision.
There is no single right or wrong way to live one's life. I don't think marriage is for everyone. And I don't think college degrees are for everyone. Just because one never marries does not have to mean that one never knows love. Just because one never earns a bachelor's degree does not have to mean that one never reads and learns.
Can you play the role of GOD in my life, please ?
From: geetanjali
Sent: Mon 10/23/06 6:48 PM
Respected & Dear Friend,
Reading your words online-literature.com has been a gratifying experience for me. I presume you must be a scholar & a renunciant in its most true sense. I am not a technosavy person, but your threads keep me on the internet for a few hours every month. Could you please do me the favour of keeping in touch with either by this e-mail or through post? I will be delighted if you respond positively because only a true devotee of GOD can write as well as you do. There is so much in books but reading you has been for me---reading the distilled essence of religion & life.
If you are agreeable to communication , I wish to introduce myself in my next letter.But as of now please know that am a devotee of GOD who wishes to know him better. I am in the pre-nursery & you are a PHD when it comes to both GOD & the Internet. If you choose to respond to me then you have to bear the infirmities of an amature. Thank you.
Eagerly awaiting for your reply, Geetanjali
...
Geetanjali and I have corresponded since that time. I have often tried to explain to her that I am not some saintly renunciate seated in saffron robes before a keyboard. If I have a certain "knack" for writing about certain things, then it all has very much to do with me being a parrot who repeats things which he has read and heard from others.
...
There is a tradition in India of people choosing someone as guru, and venerating them as a kind of representative of the divine. The phrase "God by proxy" comes to my mind as a way to describe this practice.
Americans readily use the term "idol" to describe stars like "Elvis Presley." People who become devoted to such an idol may even create a shrine of photos, statues and various memorabilia.
The Greek Orthodox Christian monastic tradition allows for a monastic to place themselves under obedience to an "elder" (Staretz in the Russian tradition). Obedience to the "elder" is a sort of role play, one might say. If Jesus were physically present, then the monastic would place themselves under obedience to Jesus.
In the Greek Orthodox liturgy, it is the Bishop who, when fully vested, becomes the "living icon" of Christ. A priest will incense the icon of Christ on the Iconostasis three times, but a serving bishop is incensed NINE times, because he is a flesh and blood icon, rather than an image of wood and paint.
Mohandas Gandhi was often beseiged by "darshan seekers", who regarded him as a divine icon or embodiment. I have seen a photograph of Mother Theresa meeting crowds in India, and the expressions of the onlookers were the unique expression of "darshan seekers". One might google on the term darshan and come to understand its unique meaning.
I can honestly say that, 10 years ago, around 1998, when I began to post on the Internet, I never set out to gain individuals as devotees or followers or disciples. I can honestly say that I DID hope to gain a sizable readership for those ideas of mine which I felt had some merit. My hopes were never realized. Perhaps 10,000 people in total, world wide, read what I posted, according to various webpage statistics programs. A scholar once remarked to me that 10,000 was a much larger readership than many scholarly monographs have enjoyed, in the decades prior to the Internet.
A few people were attracted to my personality as some kind of guru, but no one had the persistence and perseverance of Geetanjali.
At first, I was somewhat uncomfortable with the intensity of her admiration.
But, I came to realize that, since she had a desire for personal correspondence, which was certainly in my ability to grant, then, I should accommodate her desire.
After all, in this life, how many times do we find ourselves in a position to make another happy?
When I was in my early teens, I simply idolized Ernest Hemingway. I read "The Old Man and The Sea". I read his autobiographical account of the years in Paris, "Movable Feast." Hemingway's photo, with his beard, looked so wise and rugged. I was certain that I wanted to grow up to be just like Hemingway. And, I was determined to have a beard as well!
I did not know about some of Hemingway's problems.
We all seek out idols in one way or another. For some of us, it may be a sports figure, like Mickey Mantle or Joe DiMaggio.
Even conservative Protestants, who consider the veneration of a cross to be idolatry, will treat the physical book of the Bible in an idolatrous fashion, and sit at the feet of some preacher as a guru.
All children play with dolls.
No one ever completely escapes their inner child.
If Obama were not black...
Ferraro made the comment:
"If Obama were not black, he would not have gotten this far...."
Ok.... fair enough...
Now, let ME make a statement:
"If Bush were Jewish, and overweight, and bald.... he would not have gotten as far as he did..."
I think my statement is fairly prophetic...
Would the American people elect a Jewish president (or a Mormon president), even if he were the most brilliant leader imaginable?
NO...!!!!
Would the American public elect an overweight person, even if he or she were the most brilliant leader imaginable...??
NO!!!!
But, would the American public elect a substandard phony who barely made it through Yale, except with money and connections, and evaded dangerous military duty with a flashy Air Force assignment, who is described by Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history????
Yes....???? because he is Protestant and fashionable, and white, and has a good line of hooey rhetoric! And, he corrupted the founding fathers’ separation of church and state, and tried to usurp more power to the executive branch than the constitution intended.
Oh, and by the way, Obama may be half black, but he is also half white. Or does that little fact escape everyone's attention. Ah, but, a little black goes a LONG way.
"If Obama were not black, he would not have gotten this far...."
Ok.... fair enough...
Now, let ME make a statement:
"If Bush were Jewish, and overweight, and bald.... he would not have gotten as far as he did..."
I think my statement is fairly prophetic...
Would the American people elect a Jewish president (or a Mormon president), even if he were the most brilliant leader imaginable?
NO...!!!!
Would the American public elect an overweight person, even if he or she were the most brilliant leader imaginable...??
NO!!!!
But, would the American public elect a substandard phony who barely made it through Yale, except with money and connections, and evaded dangerous military duty with a flashy Air Force assignment, who is described by Jimmy Carter as the worst president in history????
Yes....???? because he is Protestant and fashionable, and white, and has a good line of hooey rhetoric! And, he corrupted the founding fathers’ separation of church and state, and tried to usurp more power to the executive branch than the constitution intended.
Oh, and by the way, Obama may be half black, but he is also half white. Or does that little fact escape everyone's attention. Ah, but, a little black goes a LONG way.
Peeling Onions
Philosophers in ancient India had an "onion peelings" theology of "neti neti", ("not this, not this").
They would peel away at being, saying "God is not this, and God is not that", like peeling away at an onion, reasoning that whatever remains must be God.
Ancient Greek Christian thinkers, such as Dionysius, spoke of this as "apophatic" theology ("speaking away from"), speaking only of what God is NOT.
Peeling onions in excess produces tears.
They would peel away at being, saying "God is not this, and God is not that", like peeling away at an onion, reasoning that whatever remains must be God.
Ancient Greek Christian thinkers, such as Dionysius, spoke of this as "apophatic" theology ("speaking away from"), speaking only of what God is NOT.
Peeling onions in excess produces tears.
Jesus' Two Acts of Violence
Theologians (of the ancient Greek variety), point out that Jesus merely raised the whip, threatening, but did not actually strike, though he did rearrange the furniture.
There were only two mentions of Jesus’ violence. The other was the fig tree. Jesus said "zeranthesete" (be thou withered), and the next day, the apostles noticed that the tree had withered. (the word Xerox, comes from that same Greek word, meaning "dry").
Now it is MY theory that the fig tree was the cause of its own suffering, rather than Jesus’ curse.
The fig tree gave the semblance of being in full bloom, and bearing sweet fruit. But, the tree was all show and no fruit. Now, you might say that "fruit" is a metaphor for "works". The tree paid lip-service to ripe figs, but was barren. Such an interpretation does not sit well with a theology of "sola fides" (salvation by faith alone). The ten foolish virgins were VIRGINS, i.e. they had a form of purity, AND they had OIL (the word for OIL in Greek is almost the same as the word for MERCY ... eleimosinary). But the foolish virgins did not have ENOUGH OIL. And the ten wise virgins explained that it is not possible to lend them any oil. You have to do the works and bear the fruit YOURSELF. No one can do it for you, or lend you merit or grace. Now, obviously the ten foolish virgins had faith in the bridegroom’s coming. Mere faith was necessary, but not sufficient.
There were only two mentions of Jesus’ violence. The other was the fig tree. Jesus said "zeranthesete" (be thou withered), and the next day, the apostles noticed that the tree had withered. (the word Xerox, comes from that same Greek word, meaning "dry").
Now it is MY theory that the fig tree was the cause of its own suffering, rather than Jesus’ curse.
The fig tree gave the semblance of being in full bloom, and bearing sweet fruit. But, the tree was all show and no fruit. Now, you might say that "fruit" is a metaphor for "works". The tree paid lip-service to ripe figs, but was barren. Such an interpretation does not sit well with a theology of "sola fides" (salvation by faith alone). The ten foolish virgins were VIRGINS, i.e. they had a form of purity, AND they had OIL (the word for OIL in Greek is almost the same as the word for MERCY ... eleimosinary). But the foolish virgins did not have ENOUGH OIL. And the ten wise virgins explained that it is not possible to lend them any oil. You have to do the works and bear the fruit YOURSELF. No one can do it for you, or lend you merit or grace. Now, obviously the ten foolish virgins had faith in the bridegroom’s coming. Mere faith was necessary, but not sufficient.
A Miracle of the Ressurection
If one examines classic style Greek iconographic representations of the empty tomb, on the morning of resurrection, one will notice the "winding sheets", hinting at a kind of miracle which Western Christianity overlooks. Gospel passages also make curious mention of these sheets.
In those times, the body was wound round and round with strips of cloth, like a mummy. One obvious miracle of the resurrection was that these winding sheets were lying, collapsed, but still perfectly wound, as though the body they contained had simply vanished, or, in some ghostly and supernatural fashion, had passed right through the winding sheets, leaving them undisturbed.
In those times, the body was wound round and round with strips of cloth, like a mummy. One obvious miracle of the resurrection was that these winding sheets were lying, collapsed, but still perfectly wound, as though the body they contained had simply vanished, or, in some ghostly and supernatural fashion, had passed right through the winding sheets, leaving them undisturbed.
Samson on Easter Morning
I wrote and posted this on 4-23-2000
The Old Testament story of Samson may possibly be a strange and complex metaphor concerning Christ and the Church.
Book of Judges Ch. 13
An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive a son, Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).
The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel (Messiah?).
Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid (Lamb of God?).
And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find ’honey in the carcass of the lion" (Eucharist?).
But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat but does not tell them where it is really from.
Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).
Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.
Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms outstretched" (Crucifixion?).
The Old Testament story of Samson may possibly be a strange and complex metaphor concerning Christ and the Church.
Book of Judges Ch. 13
An angel appears to a barren woman and tells her she shall conceive a son, Samson (Annunciation and Virgin Birth?).
The angel tells her that the child will be the deliverer of Israel (Messiah?).
Samson encounters a lion which he slays as easily as a lamb or kid (Lamb of God?).
And a few days later (3 days?), he comes to find ’honey in the carcass of the lion" (Eucharist?).
But it is a "secret" (Mystery?) so he gives it to his family to eat but does not tell them where it is really from.
Then he is betrayed (with a kiss?).
Then he is taken prisoner and mocked.
Then he "destroys the temple" so to speak with "his arms outstretched" (Crucifixion?).
Death Where is Thy Sting?
There is one Greek icon of Christ in the tomb, which is entitled "the extreme emptying (kenosis)"
There is a term in English, cenotaph, which means an empty tomb erected to commemorate someone whose remains are unavailable for entombment (e.g. those lost at sea).
Each of us must one day die, whether we are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc.
There are no doctrinal disputes regarding the inevitably of death. Death is a fact of life.
Death is a great emptying, or emptiness. We give up our every possession. Funeral shrouds have no pockets
But, if there is something, some thought, idea, belief which can dispel one’s fear of death, then that belief is powerful, apart from any question of its facticity.
Paul hinted at being "in the world, but not of the world."
"Death, where is thy sting? Grave, where is thy victory?" - 1 Corinthians 15: 54-57
There is a term in English, cenotaph, which means an empty tomb erected to commemorate someone whose remains are unavailable for entombment (e.g. those lost at sea).
Each of us must one day die, whether we are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc.
There are no doctrinal disputes regarding the inevitably of death. Death is a fact of life.
Death is a great emptying, or emptiness. We give up our every possession. Funeral shrouds have no pockets
But, if there is something, some thought, idea, belief which can dispel one’s fear of death, then that belief is powerful, apart from any question of its facticity.
Paul hinted at being "in the world, but not of the world."
"Death, where is thy sting? Grave, where is thy victory?" - 1 Corinthians 15: 54-57
Why Good Friday?
Someone asked my friend Falstaff what "Good Friday" is and why "Catholics" celebrate it.
I googled, copied, and pasted some things about "Good Friday."
But, it occurs to me to say, that it is all about "salvation."
I often post on Christian and Biblical topics. I have some considerable knowledge because of where I was and who I was around in my life.
I cannot call myself a Christian.
I am rambling a bit here, on Easter Sunday afternoon.
It is interesting to ask what "salvation" means to different people.
For some, "salvation" means deliverance from "damnation", eternal torment and suffering.
For others, salvation means something in THIS earthly life; perhaps, freedom from some addiction of drugs or sex.
Someone once said, "We were meant to use things and love people; not love things and use people."
I personally do not desire salvation. No, certainly I do not desire eternal torture, but then, I cannot see the purpose served by eternal torture with no hope of repentance and reform. Nor, can I see the purpose of a swine’s paradise of unending pleasures, slopping at rivers of wine and milk.
I once posted, years ago, about my personal desire, to be "uncreated."
I desire non-being.
As far as I know, I coined the term "uncreated". Some being, great and powerful, has a magic wand which, if waved, will uncreat me; erase every trace of my existence, as if I had never been.
All my regrets would disappear. All my errors would have never been committed.
But then, on the other hand, all the good things I was a part of would never have happened.
There were people that I hurt, as I passed through this life, yes. But there were people that I affected in a positive way.
OK, so perhaps it is wrong for me to desire the "magic wand of uncreation."
Perhaps I should merely desire cessation of existence.
The Bhagavad-Gita says something most curious. Lord Krishna says, "Those who worship the ghosts go to the ghosts; those who worship the demi-Gods go to the demi-Gods; those who worship me come to me..." I am quoting from my bleary memory. But, the gist of it is that everyone gets what they want.
The Greek Orthodox have an obscure but similar doctrine called the "River of Fire", which you can find in Google. Basically, it means that we create our own heaven or hell by our freewill choices.
I googled, copied, and pasted some things about "Good Friday."
But, it occurs to me to say, that it is all about "salvation."
I often post on Christian and Biblical topics. I have some considerable knowledge because of where I was and who I was around in my life.
I cannot call myself a Christian.
I am rambling a bit here, on Easter Sunday afternoon.
It is interesting to ask what "salvation" means to different people.
For some, "salvation" means deliverance from "damnation", eternal torment and suffering.
For others, salvation means something in THIS earthly life; perhaps, freedom from some addiction of drugs or sex.
Someone once said, "We were meant to use things and love people; not love things and use people."
I personally do not desire salvation. No, certainly I do not desire eternal torture, but then, I cannot see the purpose served by eternal torture with no hope of repentance and reform. Nor, can I see the purpose of a swine’s paradise of unending pleasures, slopping at rivers of wine and milk.
I once posted, years ago, about my personal desire, to be "uncreated."
I desire non-being.
As far as I know, I coined the term "uncreated". Some being, great and powerful, has a magic wand which, if waved, will uncreat me; erase every trace of my existence, as if I had never been.
All my regrets would disappear. All my errors would have never been committed.
But then, on the other hand, all the good things I was a part of would never have happened.
There were people that I hurt, as I passed through this life, yes. But there were people that I affected in a positive way.
OK, so perhaps it is wrong for me to desire the "magic wand of uncreation."
Perhaps I should merely desire cessation of existence.
The Bhagavad-Gita says something most curious. Lord Krishna says, "Those who worship the ghosts go to the ghosts; those who worship the demi-Gods go to the demi-Gods; those who worship me come to me..." I am quoting from my bleary memory. But, the gist of it is that everyone gets what they want.
The Greek Orthodox have an obscure but similar doctrine called the "River of Fire", which you can find in Google. Basically, it means that we create our own heaven or hell by our freewill choices.
Religion: Rolling Your Own
In one sense, my experiences and conjectures are very subjective. But in a different sense, what I write reflects a world of Hindu and Buddhist thought which traces back to the Vedas and the Zoroastrian Avestas.
Now, there are people who will say that all this is rubbish, or, worse than rubbish, it is the contrivance of devils and demons who labor to obscure the truth of Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammad, or Luther, or Calvin.
The Psalms say "The Gods of the Nations are demons... but God created the heavens and the earth."
The Qur'an says "They say ’we believe, we believe’ but later, they return to their demons and say ’we did but jest when we told them we believed."
Some people have the fortune, or misfortune, of growing up at their parents knee, reciting the Nicene Creed, or the Baltimore Catechism, or the Suras of the Quran. So, for those people, everything is rubbish, except for what Maimonides said, or Mohammad said, or Calvin and Luther said.
I did not have the good fortune to grow up with any doctrine or catechism or creed. I had to get Zig-Zag papers and Ploughboy tobacco, and roll my own cigarettes, so to speak. I was not lucky enough to be born as The Marlboro Man.
Various primordial naturalist religions encourage each individual to go on their own walk-about, have their own revelation, and find their own spirit guide. Such religions allow that any individual might at any time access the truth and become an enlightened guru.
Other religions see an Abraham, in the wilderness, in a trance, having a vision, or a Jesus, driven into the wilderness, or an Mohammad, fasting, in a cave, conversing with an angel. But, such visionaries become "the seal of the prophets". No subsequent generation is supposed to have a vision or speak a prophesy, for surely, they are in heresy, deluded, in communion with devils and demons.
Hans Kung pointed out, in On Being A Christian, that some decades before Columbus set sail, in The Council of Florence, the Roman Church adamantly stated that there IS NO SALVATION outside the Roman Catholic Church.
A mere several hundred years later, at Vatican II, Rome does an about face, in the brief encyclical Nostra Aetatis, and says that the Catholic is obligated not simply to tolerate non-Christian faiths, but to SEE WITHIN]G non Christian faiths, the ACTIVE SALVIFIC PRESENCE of God.
Theology creates strange bed-fellows.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman, was an Anglican clergymen who converted to the Church of Rome, and went on to achieve some greatness. Newman coined the term "illation" to denote the gradual cumulative effect of years and myriads of experiences, subjectively, upon one individual, to bring him, at a glacial slowness in speed, to some inner conviction. The novel "Brideshead Revisited" is a marvelous fictional illustration of just such a process of illation, at work for years, upon the character of the protagonist Charles Ryder, to gradually lead him to the convictions of Roman Catholic belief.
I suppose one of many conclusions I have come to in my life, so far, is that all the really important convictions are subjective and private, and arise through a process of illation, but, by that very nature of their ontology, are not suitable for marketing to the general public in the form of some catechism, since the general public cannot share in the life-time of myriad experiences which give meaning to the conviction.
Everyone can see the video shot from the peak of Mt. Everest, and see the exact same sunset as Hillory, but only a few are able to climb the mountain, and see with their own eyes.
I am going to post what I have so far, and continue to add and edit, so I will not lose this typing...
One obvious question about the dream I described in my post the other day is "Do you believe it was actually God in the form of Krishna appearing to you through a dream, or do you simply see a dream as a working of your own subconscious?" Well I certainly do not claim that God physically entered my dream in some supernatural fashion. I lean more towards the latter view, that dreams are a subjective form of ones conscious and subconscious activities of problem solving and wish fulfillment.
Karl Barth, the theologian, states somewhere that Biblical scripture is not divine in and of itself, like words inscribed by God’s invisible finger, or dictations from the Holy Spirit, but, rather such scriptures are the personal subjective accounts of individuals who had some experience or insight into the nature of the Divinity.
Obviously, what I write about here are my own subjective experiences, both in the waking state, and in the dreaming state.
From memory, if I try to summarize the two main dreams that I had:
1.) In spatial geometry, if point A is distance X from point B, then point B is that same distance, X, from point A. BUT, in spiritual geometry, though some are close to God, and some are far, yet God is equally close to all those individuals. Hence,God’s being at a great distance, and then approaching near in a vision, is a form of Maya (Illusion) which has some positive, protective purpose.
2.) Maya (Illusion) is necessary. A soul would be undone if it saw the utter reality of being. When Jesus tells Peter that, before the rooster crows twice, Peter will deny Jesus thrice, Peter refuses to believe this. YET, when the moment of denial comes, Peter’s memory is clouded by the protective spell of Maya, so that Peter may exercise his freewill choice with no bias of foreknowledge. For, what Christ did was to speak to Peter of the outcome of Peter’s freewill choice, as seen from the vantage-point of the pre-Eternal NOW, in which all events have already happened.
3.) God needs nothing, lacks nothing, desires nothing, possesses all things, and therefore, prayers and worship are for OUR benefit, and not something that God needs. Our relationship to God is not some "quid pro quo" relationship in which we do something for Him, and He does something for us, or we do NOT do something for Him and he does NOT do something for us.
4.) Even God must incarnate and take physical form in order to participate and taste of being and existence. Those are special times when an avatar has descended. But, when it is said that "two sparrows are sold for a farthing, yet not one falls, but your heavenly Father sees it", we should not imagine God peeking through some celestial telescope, to notice the sparrow fall, but rather, the God is INSIDE the sparrow’s being, and sees the sparrow fall PRECISELY because God is part of that sparrow, and the individuality of that sparrow’s experience.
Some years ago, I worked at night, in a tall building in Manhattan. At break time, I would glance out at all the other buildings. Simultaneously, I could see many individuals and their activity; one woman was knitting, one man was reading a book, another was cooking in the kitchen, another was watching television, and so forth. Suddenly I realized that, if I were God, then my vicarious experience of these people would be magnified infinitely, not simply to the 6 billion upon this earth at this moment, but to all who had ever lived, or would ever live, on this world, and perhaps in other worlds of which we know nothing.
Now, there are people who will say that all this is rubbish, or, worse than rubbish, it is the contrivance of devils and demons who labor to obscure the truth of Moses, or Jesus, or Mohammad, or Luther, or Calvin.
The Psalms say "The Gods of the Nations are demons... but God created the heavens and the earth."
The Qur'an says "They say ’we believe, we believe’ but later, they return to their demons and say ’we did but jest when we told them we believed."
Some people have the fortune, or misfortune, of growing up at their parents knee, reciting the Nicene Creed, or the Baltimore Catechism, or the Suras of the Quran. So, for those people, everything is rubbish, except for what Maimonides said, or Mohammad said, or Calvin and Luther said.
I did not have the good fortune to grow up with any doctrine or catechism or creed. I had to get Zig-Zag papers and Ploughboy tobacco, and roll my own cigarettes, so to speak. I was not lucky enough to be born as The Marlboro Man.
Various primordial naturalist religions encourage each individual to go on their own walk-about, have their own revelation, and find their own spirit guide. Such religions allow that any individual might at any time access the truth and become an enlightened guru.
Other religions see an Abraham, in the wilderness, in a trance, having a vision, or a Jesus, driven into the wilderness, or an Mohammad, fasting, in a cave, conversing with an angel. But, such visionaries become "the seal of the prophets". No subsequent generation is supposed to have a vision or speak a prophesy, for surely, they are in heresy, deluded, in communion with devils and demons.
Hans Kung pointed out, in On Being A Christian, that some decades before Columbus set sail, in The Council of Florence, the Roman Church adamantly stated that there IS NO SALVATION outside the Roman Catholic Church.
A mere several hundred years later, at Vatican II, Rome does an about face, in the brief encyclical Nostra Aetatis, and says that the Catholic is obligated not simply to tolerate non-Christian faiths, but to SEE WITHIN]G non Christian faiths, the ACTIVE SALVIFIC PRESENCE of God.
Theology creates strange bed-fellows.
Roman Catholic Cardinal Newman, was an Anglican clergymen who converted to the Church of Rome, and went on to achieve some greatness. Newman coined the term "illation" to denote the gradual cumulative effect of years and myriads of experiences, subjectively, upon one individual, to bring him, at a glacial slowness in speed, to some inner conviction. The novel "Brideshead Revisited" is a marvelous fictional illustration of just such a process of illation, at work for years, upon the character of the protagonist Charles Ryder, to gradually lead him to the convictions of Roman Catholic belief.
I suppose one of many conclusions I have come to in my life, so far, is that all the really important convictions are subjective and private, and arise through a process of illation, but, by that very nature of their ontology, are not suitable for marketing to the general public in the form of some catechism, since the general public cannot share in the life-time of myriad experiences which give meaning to the conviction.
Everyone can see the video shot from the peak of Mt. Everest, and see the exact same sunset as Hillory, but only a few are able to climb the mountain, and see with their own eyes.
I am going to post what I have so far, and continue to add and edit, so I will not lose this typing...
One obvious question about the dream I described in my post the other day is "Do you believe it was actually God in the form of Krishna appearing to you through a dream, or do you simply see a dream as a working of your own subconscious?" Well I certainly do not claim that God physically entered my dream in some supernatural fashion. I lean more towards the latter view, that dreams are a subjective form of ones conscious and subconscious activities of problem solving and wish fulfillment.
Karl Barth, the theologian, states somewhere that Biblical scripture is not divine in and of itself, like words inscribed by God’s invisible finger, or dictations from the Holy Spirit, but, rather such scriptures are the personal subjective accounts of individuals who had some experience or insight into the nature of the Divinity.
Obviously, what I write about here are my own subjective experiences, both in the waking state, and in the dreaming state.
From memory, if I try to summarize the two main dreams that I had:
1.) In spatial geometry, if point A is distance X from point B, then point B is that same distance, X, from point A. BUT, in spiritual geometry, though some are close to God, and some are far, yet God is equally close to all those individuals. Hence,God’s being at a great distance, and then approaching near in a vision, is a form of Maya (Illusion) which has some positive, protective purpose.
2.) Maya (Illusion) is necessary. A soul would be undone if it saw the utter reality of being. When Jesus tells Peter that, before the rooster crows twice, Peter will deny Jesus thrice, Peter refuses to believe this. YET, when the moment of denial comes, Peter’s memory is clouded by the protective spell of Maya, so that Peter may exercise his freewill choice with no bias of foreknowledge. For, what Christ did was to speak to Peter of the outcome of Peter’s freewill choice, as seen from the vantage-point of the pre-Eternal NOW, in which all events have already happened.
3.) God needs nothing, lacks nothing, desires nothing, possesses all things, and therefore, prayers and worship are for OUR benefit, and not something that God needs. Our relationship to God is not some "quid pro quo" relationship in which we do something for Him, and He does something for us, or we do NOT do something for Him and he does NOT do something for us.
4.) Even God must incarnate and take physical form in order to participate and taste of being and existence. Those are special times when an avatar has descended. But, when it is said that "two sparrows are sold for a farthing, yet not one falls, but your heavenly Father sees it", we should not imagine God peeking through some celestial telescope, to notice the sparrow fall, but rather, the God is INSIDE the sparrow’s being, and sees the sparrow fall PRECISELY because God is part of that sparrow, and the individuality of that sparrow’s experience.
Some years ago, I worked at night, in a tall building in Manhattan. At break time, I would glance out at all the other buildings. Simultaneously, I could see many individuals and their activity; one woman was knitting, one man was reading a book, another was cooking in the kitchen, another was watching television, and so forth. Suddenly I realized that, if I were God, then my vicarious experience of these people would be magnified infinitely, not simply to the 6 billion upon this earth at this moment, but to all who had ever lived, or would ever live, on this world, and perhaps in other worlds of which we know nothing.
Two Sons of God Mentioned in the Bible
Most people overlook, or perhaps intentionally ignore, the fact that there are TWO people referred to in the New Testament as "son of God."
One, of course, is Jesus. But the other is Adam, in one of the genealogies.
When my Internet friend, Falstaff, speaks of Jesus being surprised and startled out of the sleep of death, by an angel, he is suggesting, or rather, his words suggest, that Jesus is only a man, and not "theanthropos" or "god-man".
I knew a Protestant Christian once who was horrified at the suggestion that Jesus is God. She said, "No! No! Jesus is the SON of God. But only the Father is God."
Archeologists and Paleontologists cite the oldest known reference to Christianity, by non-Christian writers as saying "They would gather at dawn, and sing hymns to Christ, as if to a God."
Now, in the face of the verse I cite stating that Jesus has the power to lay down his own life, and take it up again, what Falstaff describes in his poem is simply incorrect.
If it can be correct, or conceivable, that Jesus is both God and human, and yet is startaled and surprised by awakening in a resurrection, then, this is only possible to the extent that God can cast Maya or Illusion upon himself, to forget for a moment, his Godhood, and play at the Lila (pastime) of being a babe in a manger, or a prisoner, or one surprised by his awakening from death. But the notion of God being subject to maya is a Hindu understanding, and not a Judaeo-Christian one.
Jesus said: "I was present and saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening." What is Jesus talking about? Surely, this must be some reference to a time before the creation of light and darkness in Genesis; a time when there were only angels.
Jesus said "No man has seen the Father at any time. He who sees me sees the Father." This means that when prophet Daniel sees a white-haired Ancient of Days seated upon a throne, Daniel cannot possibly be seeing God the Father, since no man has seen the father at any time. So, Daniel must have been seeing Christ as the pre-Eternal Logos.
There are verses which seem to cloud these issues. Jesus says "for the Father is GREATER than I am." Greeks call this the "hypapantasis", meaning the humility of the Son to state that the Father is greater, even though, in the seven ecumenical councils, the unity and equality of the persons of the Trinity is stressed.
Jesus also says "No man knoweth the day an the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father knows". Jesus is saying that he does not know the day and the hour of the judgment described in the Book of Revelation. Yet, if Jesus and the Father are ONE, then how can Jesus NOT know?
To quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article on Arianism: "In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father."
MONOPHYSITISM, the opposite of Arianism, teaches that Jesus had no human nature, but was wholly divine.
At St. John’s, in the late 1960s, when I began to sing Leonard Cohen’s song "Suzanne", I changed the line "forsaken, almost human, he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone" to "forsaken, ALL SO HUMAN, he sank beneath your wisdom like a star."
I sensed that there was a problem with saying that Jesus was not human, and also a problem with saying that Jesus was merely human.
The Bible tells us that the poor shall always be with us (both Moses and Jesus say this), and that until the end of the world there shall always be wars and rumors of wars.
Yet we never cease to dream of ending poverty and achieving world peace.
...
One, of course, is Jesus. But the other is Adam, in one of the genealogies.
When my Internet friend, Falstaff, speaks of Jesus being surprised and startled out of the sleep of death, by an angel, he is suggesting, or rather, his words suggest, that Jesus is only a man, and not "theanthropos" or "god-man".
I knew a Protestant Christian once who was horrified at the suggestion that Jesus is God. She said, "No! No! Jesus is the SON of God. But only the Father is God."
Archeologists and Paleontologists cite the oldest known reference to Christianity, by non-Christian writers as saying "They would gather at dawn, and sing hymns to Christ, as if to a God."
Now, in the face of the verse I cite stating that Jesus has the power to lay down his own life, and take it up again, what Falstaff describes in his poem is simply incorrect.
If it can be correct, or conceivable, that Jesus is both God and human, and yet is startaled and surprised by awakening in a resurrection, then, this is only possible to the extent that God can cast Maya or Illusion upon himself, to forget for a moment, his Godhood, and play at the Lila (pastime) of being a babe in a manger, or a prisoner, or one surprised by his awakening from death. But the notion of God being subject to maya is a Hindu understanding, and not a Judaeo-Christian one.
Jesus said: "I was present and saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening." What is Jesus talking about? Surely, this must be some reference to a time before the creation of light and darkness in Genesis; a time when there were only angels.
Jesus said "No man has seen the Father at any time. He who sees me sees the Father." This means that when prophet Daniel sees a white-haired Ancient of Days seated upon a throne, Daniel cannot possibly be seeing God the Father, since no man has seen the father at any time. So, Daniel must have been seeing Christ as the pre-Eternal Logos.
There are verses which seem to cloud these issues. Jesus says "for the Father is GREATER than I am." Greeks call this the "hypapantasis", meaning the humility of the Son to state that the Father is greater, even though, in the seven ecumenical councils, the unity and equality of the persons of the Trinity is stressed.
Jesus also says "No man knoweth the day an the hour, not even the Son, but only the Father knows". Jesus is saying that he does not know the day and the hour of the judgment described in the Book of Revelation. Yet, if Jesus and the Father are ONE, then how can Jesus NOT know?
To quote the Encyclopaedia Britannica’s article on Arianism: "In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father."
MONOPHYSITISM, the opposite of Arianism, teaches that Jesus had no human nature, but was wholly divine.
At St. John’s, in the late 1960s, when I began to sing Leonard Cohen’s song "Suzanne", I changed the line "forsaken, almost human, he sank beneath your wisdom like a stone" to "forsaken, ALL SO HUMAN, he sank beneath your wisdom like a star."
I sensed that there was a problem with saying that Jesus was not human, and also a problem with saying that Jesus was merely human.
The Bible tells us that the poor shall always be with us (both Moses and Jesus say this), and that until the end of the world there shall always be wars and rumors of wars.
Yet we never cease to dream of ending poverty and achieving world peace.
...
Two of My Dreams About God
I have had several dreams about God.
Here is my account of the first dream, which was sometime in the Winter of 1994.
Just as when you stand at seashore...
and you can see to the horizon...
the curvature of the earth...
In the dream, I could see to the horizon... and I saw a little, triangular cloud on horizon...
and in dream, I instantly knew it was Bhagawan... (which means He who possesses every wealth, every opulence)
It spoke to me, saying....
"I am coming to see you"
The voice was the same intensity and clarity... whether the cloud was far away or up close
So the cloud came to me... and it was enormous.... and eclipsed all else... and inside the cloud...
I saw the swirling, alternating images, in no particular order, of ...
Lord Krishna Lord Buddha Lord Jesus
which were the three religions that I had seriously practiced in my life... I could also see other images... but not distinct... and after I woke...
I decided that these were other Avataric forms.... of religions I had not practiced...
So I could not recognize them clearly
I knew that I was supposed to hold up my right hand to the cloud
and He/It - (genderless you understand, but English language always says
He for God)... It inscribed red glowing symbols in the palm of my hand...
So when I looked at my palm,... I saw the swirling, alternating images of
OM, which is Hindu, ... The Wheel of The Dharma, which is Buddhist, and Yin Yang, which is Taoist... (but no Christian symbol appeared in my hand)
In dream, I knew that it was a good thing, gift, and a sign that one day I would achieve God-Realization. So I looked at the Cloud, and said,...
"Why do you do such a nice thing for me... when so many times in my life...
... I have cursed you bitterly for creating existence, and putting me in it to suffer
It answered saying
"Although I am in every religion, I am beyond all religions...
I am beyond all dualities... of Good / Evil, of Love / Hate, of Pleasure/Pain....
.... your anger, your bitterness,
does not bother Me at all....
there is no "bad" thing which you could do,
.... or "good" thing which you could fail to do...
which would prevent Me from perfecting you to that purpose
for which I ultimately created you.
So, in the dream , I said
"I have just one question...
(I was not conscious of this question in waking life)
I asked,
"Is it true that, in this existence, we are protected by Maya (or Illusion)?"
Bhagawan answered, saying:
"Yes, this is true. If it were not for the protection of Maya...
.... you would see that I am all things, but that would be a very
difficult vision for your soul to endure...
if you were not properly prepared."
Then Bhagawan said,
"You must remain in the Samsara of Existence for a few more lifetimes,
and be purified through suffering."
And then, in the dream, Bhagawan suddenly started to depart, to go away, just like that,... slowly...
and I felt much anxiety,....
"What should I do , I thought...
Bhagawan came and did these things and said these things,... and now is just going away...
should I kneel, should I bow, should I say a prayer, should I say thank you ???
but Bhagawan knew my thoughts and answered me saying ...
"I do not need your prayers. I DO NOT NEED ANYTHING...
if prayers and worship are necessary,
they are necessary FOR YOU...
they are not necessary TO ME..
this is not a QUID-PRO-QUO relationship,
you do something for Me, I do something for you...
you dont do something for Me,
I dont do something for you....
No... thats not the way it works...
and then I woke up...
SECOND DREAM
Here is an account of the second dream I had regarding God:
Today, as I am writing, it is Friday morning, August 16, 2002. In
the wee hours of Wednesday morning, August 14, I awoke from a most
unusual dream. As I slowly awakened, I smiled and chuckled to
myself, "I was dreaming about Lord Krishna." But suddenly, as I
became more fully awake, I did one of those movie-cartoon
double-takes, "Wait! I had a dream about Lord Krishna!" I suddenly
realized the rarity and significance of such a dream.
I read that the Pope, shortly after his election, had a dream about
some urgent problem in the Catholic church. As he began to awaken,
he said to himself, "Oh, I must speak to the Pope at once about this
matter." But then, as he became more fully awake, he suddenly
realized, "Wait, I AM the Pope!"
By way of explanation, for readers who might not be familiar with
these matters, Lord Krishna is the subject of the Bhagavad-gita,
which is actually one Book or Chapter in the Mahabharat. Lord
Krishna is an Avatar (One Who comes down) or Incarnation of Lord
Vishnu. Lord Vishnu, in turn, is one of the three Persons of the
Hindu Trinity of Bramha, Vishnu, Shiva (who are seen as the Creative,
Preserving and Destructive aspects of God). A belief in Lord Krishna
as "God in human form" is analogous to the Christian belief that God
incarnates and takes human form as Jesus Christ.
In my dream, Lord Krishna was sitting right before me, facing me.
His eyes were His most amazing and memorable feature, lotus-like,
large and limpid, filled with feeling and knowing compassion. Also
with us in this dream were my 18 year-old stepson, who is Catholic,
and my 84 year-old father, who describes himself as an Atheist.
What was said in the dream was of great importance, but what
impressed me more about the dream was that there was much to be
learned from the nonverbal aspects of the dream (or the dream’s "body
language" if you will, which I will attempt to explain as I narrate
the dream).
In my dream, the first thing I did was ask Lord Krishna a direct
question: "Is it true that no one, not even God, can completely know
and understand and experience Being (Existence) without incarnating
and taking bodily form and experiencing Reality as a finite embodied
being?" Upon hearing my question (though He seemed to hear as one
distracted by many other concerns Who has very briefly consented to
an audience), Lord Krishna looked directly at me for a moment with
utmost intensity (gathering His attention away from that myriad of
other matters), smiled knowingly, almost ironically, and then ever so
slightly and with some air of reluctance, nodded as if to
answer "Yes, this is true, even We (Lord Krishna) must incarnate to
fully experience Being, but this is an intimate secret of Our nature,
and since you surprise Us by stumbling upon such an important
question, We shall subtly indicate to you the truth about incarnation
and avatar-hood with a nod, but Our answer shall be an unspoken one,
since We do not care to have Our words quoted or misquoted."
My second and final question to Lord Krishna was a request: "Could
You please show to me your Universal Form so that my faith and
understanding might be strengthened and confirmed." (You may see a
painting of Lord Krishna’s Universal Form at page 309 of my website,
Lord Krishna immediately began to kaleidoscopically transform before
my eyes with blinding speed into countless forms, some beautiful,
some terrifying. The emotions which I felt seeing this were awe,
wonder, amazement and dread, accompanied by the horripulation (hair
standing on end) which is described in various Hindu writings.
But equally incredible, in this dream, was that I glanced at my
stepson, during Lord Krishna’s transmogrification, and to my
amazement, saw that my stepson was also displaying the Universal
Form, like a mirror reflecting everything that I was seeing in Lord
Krishna.
If you stand beneath a leafy tree on a bright, sunny day, you will notice
in the shadow of the tree on the ground, little specks of sunlight.
I never realized what those little spots of light actually are,
until one day there was a partial eclipse of the sun and I was standing
under a tree. As I watched those many spots of light in the shadow, they
also partially eclipsed. Those spots of light are not simply fragments or
rays of light, as I had always assumed, but are actually camera obscura images
of the sun itself, and mimic the sun. The "lens" which focuses those images
is the tiny paths or openings between all the leaves. My point in mentioning
this is that my stepson also displayed the transformations in the dream because
each person is like one of those camera obscura images of the sun, mirroring
and mimicking the sun’s image.
After a few moments, Lord Krishna returned to his familiar and
friendly, Lotus-eyed form, and then disappeared.
I looked at my father, to see his reaction to all that we had
witnessed, thinking "surely having experienced these things, he will
no longer be an atheist, but will have some belief." But my father
saw and heard nothing. He walked over to a small table which had
some incense burning, sniffed the smoke and said "these must be drugs
of some sort, for you two to make such fantastic claims." My father
having said this, the dream ended and I awoke.
Here is my account of the first dream, which was sometime in the Winter of 1994.
Just as when you stand at seashore...
and you can see to the horizon...
the curvature of the earth...
In the dream, I could see to the horizon... and I saw a little, triangular cloud on horizon...
and in dream, I instantly knew it was Bhagawan... (which means He who possesses every wealth, every opulence)
It spoke to me, saying....
"I am coming to see you"
The voice was the same intensity and clarity... whether the cloud was far away or up close
So the cloud came to me... and it was enormous.... and eclipsed all else... and inside the cloud...
I saw the swirling, alternating images, in no particular order, of ...
Lord Krishna Lord Buddha Lord Jesus
which were the three religions that I had seriously practiced in my life... I could also see other images... but not distinct... and after I woke...
I decided that these were other Avataric forms.... of religions I had not practiced...
So I could not recognize them clearly
I knew that I was supposed to hold up my right hand to the cloud
and He/It - (genderless you understand, but English language always says
He for God)... It inscribed red glowing symbols in the palm of my hand...
So when I looked at my palm,... I saw the swirling, alternating images of
OM, which is Hindu, ... The Wheel of The Dharma, which is Buddhist, and Yin Yang, which is Taoist... (but no Christian symbol appeared in my hand)
In dream, I knew that it was a good thing, gift, and a sign that one day I would achieve God-Realization. So I looked at the Cloud, and said,...
"Why do you do such a nice thing for me... when so many times in my life...
... I have cursed you bitterly for creating existence, and putting me in it to suffer
It answered saying
"Although I am in every religion, I am beyond all religions...
I am beyond all dualities... of Good / Evil, of Love / Hate, of Pleasure/Pain....
.... your anger, your bitterness,
does not bother Me at all....
there is no "bad" thing which you could do,
.... or "good" thing which you could fail to do...
which would prevent Me from perfecting you to that purpose
for which I ultimately created you.
So, in the dream , I said
"I have just one question...
(I was not conscious of this question in waking life)
I asked,
"Is it true that, in this existence, we are protected by Maya (or Illusion)?"
Bhagawan answered, saying:
"Yes, this is true. If it were not for the protection of Maya...
.... you would see that I am all things, but that would be a very
difficult vision for your soul to endure...
if you were not properly prepared."
Then Bhagawan said,
"You must remain in the Samsara of Existence for a few more lifetimes,
and be purified through suffering."
And then, in the dream, Bhagawan suddenly started to depart, to go away, just like that,... slowly...
and I felt much anxiety,....
"What should I do , I thought...
Bhagawan came and did these things and said these things,... and now is just going away...
should I kneel, should I bow, should I say a prayer, should I say thank you ???
but Bhagawan knew my thoughts and answered me saying ...
"I do not need your prayers. I DO NOT NEED ANYTHING...
if prayers and worship are necessary,
they are necessary FOR YOU...
they are not necessary TO ME..
this is not a QUID-PRO-QUO relationship,
you do something for Me, I do something for you...
you dont do something for Me,
I dont do something for you....
No... thats not the way it works...
and then I woke up...
SECOND DREAM
Here is an account of the second dream I had regarding God:
Today, as I am writing, it is Friday morning, August 16, 2002. In
the wee hours of Wednesday morning, August 14, I awoke from a most
unusual dream. As I slowly awakened, I smiled and chuckled to
myself, "I was dreaming about Lord Krishna." But suddenly, as I
became more fully awake, I did one of those movie-cartoon
double-takes, "Wait! I had a dream about Lord Krishna!" I suddenly
realized the rarity and significance of such a dream.
I read that the Pope, shortly after his election, had a dream about
some urgent problem in the Catholic church. As he began to awaken,
he said to himself, "Oh, I must speak to the Pope at once about this
matter." But then, as he became more fully awake, he suddenly
realized, "Wait, I AM the Pope!"
By way of explanation, for readers who might not be familiar with
these matters, Lord Krishna is the subject of the Bhagavad-gita,
which is actually one Book or Chapter in the Mahabharat. Lord
Krishna is an Avatar (One Who comes down) or Incarnation of Lord
Vishnu. Lord Vishnu, in turn, is one of the three Persons of the
Hindu Trinity of Bramha, Vishnu, Shiva (who are seen as the Creative,
Preserving and Destructive aspects of God). A belief in Lord Krishna
as "God in human form" is analogous to the Christian belief that God
incarnates and takes human form as Jesus Christ.
In my dream, Lord Krishna was sitting right before me, facing me.
His eyes were His most amazing and memorable feature, lotus-like,
large and limpid, filled with feeling and knowing compassion. Also
with us in this dream were my 18 year-old stepson, who is Catholic,
and my 84 year-old father, who describes himself as an Atheist.
What was said in the dream was of great importance, but what
impressed me more about the dream was that there was much to be
learned from the nonverbal aspects of the dream (or the dream’s "body
language" if you will, which I will attempt to explain as I narrate
the dream).
In my dream, the first thing I did was ask Lord Krishna a direct
question: "Is it true that no one, not even God, can completely know
and understand and experience Being (Existence) without incarnating
and taking bodily form and experiencing Reality as a finite embodied
being?" Upon hearing my question (though He seemed to hear as one
distracted by many other concerns Who has very briefly consented to
an audience), Lord Krishna looked directly at me for a moment with
utmost intensity (gathering His attention away from that myriad of
other matters), smiled knowingly, almost ironically, and then ever so
slightly and with some air of reluctance, nodded as if to
answer "Yes, this is true, even We (Lord Krishna) must incarnate to
fully experience Being, but this is an intimate secret of Our nature,
and since you surprise Us by stumbling upon such an important
question, We shall subtly indicate to you the truth about incarnation
and avatar-hood with a nod, but Our answer shall be an unspoken one,
since We do not care to have Our words quoted or misquoted."
My second and final question to Lord Krishna was a request: "Could
You please show to me your Universal Form so that my faith and
understanding might be strengthened and confirmed." (You may see a
painting of Lord Krishna’s Universal Form at page 309 of my website,
Lord Krishna immediately began to kaleidoscopically transform before
my eyes with blinding speed into countless forms, some beautiful,
some terrifying. The emotions which I felt seeing this were awe,
wonder, amazement and dread, accompanied by the horripulation (hair
standing on end) which is described in various Hindu writings.
But equally incredible, in this dream, was that I glanced at my
stepson, during Lord Krishna’s transmogrification, and to my
amazement, saw that my stepson was also displaying the Universal
Form, like a mirror reflecting everything that I was seeing in Lord
Krishna.
If you stand beneath a leafy tree on a bright, sunny day, you will notice
in the shadow of the tree on the ground, little specks of sunlight.
I never realized what those little spots of light actually are,
until one day there was a partial eclipse of the sun and I was standing
under a tree. As I watched those many spots of light in the shadow, they
also partially eclipsed. Those spots of light are not simply fragments or
rays of light, as I had always assumed, but are actually camera obscura images
of the sun itself, and mimic the sun. The "lens" which focuses those images
is the tiny paths or openings between all the leaves. My point in mentioning
this is that my stepson also displayed the transformations in the dream because
each person is like one of those camera obscura images of the sun, mirroring
and mimicking the sun’s image.
After a few moments, Lord Krishna returned to his familiar and
friendly, Lotus-eyed form, and then disappeared.
I looked at my father, to see his reaction to all that we had
witnessed, thinking "surely having experienced these things, he will
no longer be an atheist, but will have some belief." But my father
saw and heard nothing. He walked over to a small table which had
some incense burning, sniffed the smoke and said "these must be drugs
of some sort, for you two to make such fantastic claims." My father
having said this, the dream ended and I awoke.
Maya (Illusion) and Christian Theology
The question of Maya (illusion) came up when my Internet friend, Falstaff, wrote a poem in which Jesus is startled to be awakened from the dead by an angel, and realize that the promise of his Father, to raise Jesus from the dead, had been kept.
I pointed out that, according to one or more verses, Jesus quite possibly raises himself. Then, I observed that only if the Hindu notion of maya were at work, and the incarnation of God as Jesus is a divine Lila or pastime, THEN it might be conceivable that Jesus, immersed in the Maya of divine Lila, forgets that he is God, and is indeed startled to awaken from death.
A few other possibilities come to my mind, with regard to Biblical Maya.
God promises King Solomon that God will dwell in the temple once it is built.
There is a verse in which Solomon looks at the temple and says "how can God dwell in this tabernacle when even the heavens are not wide enough to contain God."
I did a google search on some things, and came up with something regarding the Greek Christian notion of hypostasis (the three hypostases of the Trinity), as having some relation to Aristotle’s original use of the term hypostasis, which in turn has a connection with Plato’s notion of the underlying nature of reality vs. the seeming illusion or Maya which is perceived as reality.
We are reminded of Plato’s famous "Cave Analogy" in The Republic, where everyone is chained down, beholding shadows cast upon a wall, mistaking those shadows for reality.
I must post this now, and come back and add to it during the coming days.
In Christian usage, the Greek word hypostasis has a complicated and sometimes confusing history, but its literal meaning is "that which stands beneath".
It was used by, for instance, Aristotle and the Neo-platonists, to speak of the objective reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion) of a thing, its inner reality. In the Christian Scriptures this seems roughly its meaning at Hebrews 1:3. Allied to this was its use for "basis" or "foundation" and hence also "confidence," e.g., in Hebrews 3:14 and 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The most compelling argument in favor of the notion that God is willingly subject to his own Maya is the incarnation itself.
There is an ancient Greek hymn which describes Archangel Gabriel singing to the Virgin Mary:
When the bodiless one heard the secret command
In haste he came and stood at Joseph’s dwelling
Crying unto the maiden who knew not wedlock
’The one who bowed down the heavens by his descent
Is held and contained unchanging wholly in thee.
Seeing him receive the form of a servant
In thy womb
I stand in awe and cry to thee
Rejoice thou bride unwed."
...
Consider this:
"God became man so that man might become a god." (cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3
Western Abrahamic religions concentrate on mans process of approaching God. Eastern Vedic religions also recognize this process of human deification, but equally dwell upon the reverse process of God entering willingly into the creation, even to the extent of surrendering to the Maya or illusion of physico-temporal being.
Consider an actor in a drama, who is conscious of the fiction of that drama.
But then, consider that as an actor approaches closer and closer to perfection, he or she merges with the character of the role, until, in an ideal situation, the actor truly believes the reality of the fiction.
Now, if God assumes the form of an infant, but retains all aspects of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, then, in some sense, God is being deceitful, is lying. If God is being honest, then, God is truly an infant, in every sense of the word, and has willingly surrendered to maya.
In modern times, it is Nikos Kazankis who explores the vividness of God surrendered to Maya, in "The Last Temptation of Christ."
At one extreme, we have the Islamic notion of God, as Allah, as "unlike to anything which is (as a verse in the Qur'an states). Islam is the extreme example of God as totally outside of the universe. Such a God must not visually appear at any time, no even allow his voice to be heard (which is why the Qur'an is dictated to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabreel.)
At another extreme, in Vedic religions, we see God described as immanent yet transcendent.
The more closely God encroaches upon the world and sentient beings, the more forcefully must some form of Maya or illusion be invoked.
I pointed out that, according to one or more verses, Jesus quite possibly raises himself. Then, I observed that only if the Hindu notion of maya were at work, and the incarnation of God as Jesus is a divine Lila or pastime, THEN it might be conceivable that Jesus, immersed in the Maya of divine Lila, forgets that he is God, and is indeed startled to awaken from death.
A few other possibilities come to my mind, with regard to Biblical Maya.
God promises King Solomon that God will dwell in the temple once it is built.
There is a verse in which Solomon looks at the temple and says "how can God dwell in this tabernacle when even the heavens are not wide enough to contain God."
I did a google search on some things, and came up with something regarding the Greek Christian notion of hypostasis (the three hypostases of the Trinity), as having some relation to Aristotle’s original use of the term hypostasis, which in turn has a connection with Plato’s notion of the underlying nature of reality vs. the seeming illusion or Maya which is perceived as reality.
We are reminded of Plato’s famous "Cave Analogy" in The Republic, where everyone is chained down, beholding shadows cast upon a wall, mistaking those shadows for reality.
I must post this now, and come back and add to it during the coming days.
In Christian usage, the Greek word hypostasis has a complicated and sometimes confusing history, but its literal meaning is "that which stands beneath".
It was used by, for instance, Aristotle and the Neo-platonists, to speak of the objective reality (as opposed to outer form or illusion) of a thing, its inner reality. In the Christian Scriptures this seems roughly its meaning at Hebrews 1:3. Allied to this was its use for "basis" or "foundation" and hence also "confidence," e.g., in Hebrews 3:14 and 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17.
Hebrews 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
The most compelling argument in favor of the notion that God is willingly subject to his own Maya is the incarnation itself.
There is an ancient Greek hymn which describes Archangel Gabriel singing to the Virgin Mary:
When the bodiless one heard the secret command
In haste he came and stood at Joseph’s dwelling
Crying unto the maiden who knew not wedlock
’The one who bowed down the heavens by his descent
Is held and contained unchanging wholly in thee.
Seeing him receive the form of a servant
In thy womb
I stand in awe and cry to thee
Rejoice thou bride unwed."
...
Consider this:
"God became man so that man might become a god." (cf. St. Athanasius, De Incarnatione or On the Incarnation 54:3
Western Abrahamic religions concentrate on mans process of approaching God. Eastern Vedic religions also recognize this process of human deification, but equally dwell upon the reverse process of God entering willingly into the creation, even to the extent of surrendering to the Maya or illusion of physico-temporal being.
Consider an actor in a drama, who is conscious of the fiction of that drama.
But then, consider that as an actor approaches closer and closer to perfection, he or she merges with the character of the role, until, in an ideal situation, the actor truly believes the reality of the fiction.
Now, if God assumes the form of an infant, but retains all aspects of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, then, in some sense, God is being deceitful, is lying. If God is being honest, then, God is truly an infant, in every sense of the word, and has willingly surrendered to maya.
In modern times, it is Nikos Kazankis who explores the vividness of God surrendered to Maya, in "The Last Temptation of Christ."
At one extreme, we have the Islamic notion of God, as Allah, as "unlike to anything which is (as a verse in the Qur'an states). Islam is the extreme example of God as totally outside of the universe. Such a God must not visually appear at any time, no even allow his voice to be heard (which is why the Qur'an is dictated to Muhammad by the Archangel Gabreel.)
At another extreme, in Vedic religions, we see God described as immanent yet transcendent.
The more closely God encroaches upon the world and sentient beings, the more forcefully must some form of Maya or illusion be invoked.
Something Which God Cannot See
Someone asked me if there is something which God cannot see.
Here is my reply:
Your question is related to Bertrand Russell’s conundrum:
"If God is omnipresent (present in every imaginable place), then God must be present in the heart of Satan. If Satan has God in his heart, then Satan cannot be all bad. BUT, if Satan does NOT have God in his heart, then there is at least one place where God is not present. Ergo, God is not omnipresent."
Here is a second example of such puzzles: "One assumes that God is perfect in the sense of completeness and lacks nothing and that God is all wise. Now, if a being who slacks nothing chooses to create a universe, then, that is an action which appears senseless. But an all wise being would never do something senseless. Yet, if there was a sensible purpose for creating the universe, then, something must have been lacking and needful, prior to the act of creation, which refutes the notion of completeness."
The work of logicians such as Russell, and mathematicians, show that certain seeming impossibilities arise due to the very limitations of the language and syntax of our axiomatic systems.
The existence and nature of rabbits in no way violates the laws of chemistry and physics. Yet, a complete knowledge of all such laws would never lead us inductively to the notion of a rabbit.
Somewhere, Einstein stated that there is no way that anyone might empirically, inductively arrive at the concepts of relativity and physics.
It is ok for us to speak of a red wagon, or a red flower. But when we attempt to speak of redness itself, as a qualia, in the abstract, then, we run into certain linguistic and epistemological problems.
So, there are certain prior questions we must ask before we ask the question about something which God cannot see.
Here is my reply:
Your question is related to Bertrand Russell’s conundrum:
"If God is omnipresent (present in every imaginable place), then God must be present in the heart of Satan. If Satan has God in his heart, then Satan cannot be all bad. BUT, if Satan does NOT have God in his heart, then there is at least one place where God is not present. Ergo, God is not omnipresent."
Here is a second example of such puzzles: "One assumes that God is perfect in the sense of completeness and lacks nothing and that God is all wise. Now, if a being who slacks nothing chooses to create a universe, then, that is an action which appears senseless. But an all wise being would never do something senseless. Yet, if there was a sensible purpose for creating the universe, then, something must have been lacking and needful, prior to the act of creation, which refutes the notion of completeness."
The work of logicians such as Russell, and mathematicians, show that certain seeming impossibilities arise due to the very limitations of the language and syntax of our axiomatic systems.
The existence and nature of rabbits in no way violates the laws of chemistry and physics. Yet, a complete knowledge of all such laws would never lead us inductively to the notion of a rabbit.
Somewhere, Einstein stated that there is no way that anyone might empirically, inductively arrive at the concepts of relativity and physics.
It is ok for us to speak of a red wagon, or a red flower. But when we attempt to speak of redness itself, as a qualia, in the abstract, then, we run into certain linguistic and epistemological problems.
So, there are certain prior questions we must ask before we ask the question about something which God cannot see.
Is Reality Analog or Digital?
One great question is whether reality is digital or analog, i.e., can reality be precisely expressed in some numeric fashion, or is there always something incommensurable and illusive about our digital models. Another issue regards whether holism or reductionism is the right way to approach reality. In a holistic view, the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. For the reductionist, the whole is exactly the sum of the parts. A third point is the stark contrast between the frenetic quantum world of sub-atomic particles, which, for all of its Salvador Dali wackiness, composes a grand clock-like precision on an intergalactic scale. Next one should consider the great debate between the mathematicians Godel and Hilbert regarding whether everything which is true should be mathematically provable. And, finally, Einstein' comment that no one could possibly infer through inductive examination of phenomena, at the laws of quantum and relativity.
Now here is an excerpt from something I once wrote called "Tohu Bohu" (darkness and void.)
Let us say that Divinity is Consciousness; Consciousness is divine, imagination is an aspect of consciousness, and within the realm of imagination dwell all things, and at imagination's borders, all impossibilities, absurdities, unicorns and horned rabbits, await admission and entrance. Hence, Imagination is the threshold of existence, and the unimaginable is non-being.
...
Thoughts are certainly a part of existent being and reality. Someone like Einstein, or Heisenberg, or Bohr, has within there mind the ability to produce a kaleidoscopic array of mathematical models of possible realities. One day, someone stumbles on a correspondence between one of those mathematical models, and something in measurable, experienced phenomena. This is what Einstein might have meant in saying that no one could inductively arrive at quantum or relativity through experience and observation alone.
Now here is an excerpt from something I once wrote called "Tohu Bohu" (darkness and void.)
Let us say that Divinity is Consciousness; Consciousness is divine, imagination is an aspect of consciousness, and within the realm of imagination dwell all things, and at imagination's borders, all impossibilities, absurdities, unicorns and horned rabbits, await admission and entrance. Hence, Imagination is the threshold of existence, and the unimaginable is non-being.
...
Thoughts are certainly a part of existent being and reality. Someone like Einstein, or Heisenberg, or Bohr, has within there mind the ability to produce a kaleidoscopic array of mathematical models of possible realities. One day, someone stumbles on a correspondence between one of those mathematical models, and something in measurable, experienced phenomena. This is what Einstein might have meant in saying that no one could inductively arrive at quantum or relativity through experience and observation alone.
What Is Faithfulness
This is my only gem of the day, that came up in a private conversation.
Someone asked me "what is your definition of marital faithfulness?"
I answered:
There are three kinds of faithfulness:
1. Jimmy Carter faithfulness
2. Bill Clinton faithfulness
3. Mick Jagger faithfulness
(you kind of had to be there)
Someone asked me "what is your definition of marital faithfulness?"
I answered:
There are three kinds of faithfulness:
1. Jimmy Carter faithfulness
2. Bill Clinton faithfulness
3. Mick Jagger faithfulness
(you kind of had to be there)
Idle Conversation
When I was a novice for a year in a Greek monastery, in 1975, the term "idle conversation" was used to denote people sitting about chatting simply to pass the time.
I have today and tomorrow to stay home and rest from my kidney stone surgery.
I was watching some news program, and a reporter from the NY Times was saying that Obama failed at some meeting designed to show him as a regular guy who does goofy human things like get a $400 hair cut, or bowl a game of 60. The reporter when on to day "does Obama even GET what the average small town American is about?" I found the remarks fatuous. I DO NOT want someone who is JUST LIKE ME running the country. I am basically a LOSER in many ways. A lot of people are losers in various ways, either economically or academically.
I want someone who gifted in some way, who can found and lead vast corporations, for example, or who stays up to 3am studying foreign policy. Any gifted outstanding leader is likely to be somewhat different from the rest of us, and perhaps even seem a bit eccentric compared to the average person in the streets. I don't think they are going to be great bowlers who slurp beer, and giggle over fart jokes. Hey, that is very American. Go into any number of bars and eavesdrop for a while and tell me what you hear for the most part.
If you want to know what this country is about, you will find out on the PBS educational channels, and not on the sit-coms and reality shows, American Idol or Dancing With The Stars.
I have today and tomorrow to stay home and rest from my kidney stone surgery.
I was watching some news program, and a reporter from the NY Times was saying that Obama failed at some meeting designed to show him as a regular guy who does goofy human things like get a $400 hair cut, or bowl a game of 60. The reporter when on to day "does Obama even GET what the average small town American is about?" I found the remarks fatuous. I DO NOT want someone who is JUST LIKE ME running the country. I am basically a LOSER in many ways. A lot of people are losers in various ways, either economically or academically.
I want someone who gifted in some way, who can found and lead vast corporations, for example, or who stays up to 3am studying foreign policy. Any gifted outstanding leader is likely to be somewhat different from the rest of us, and perhaps even seem a bit eccentric compared to the average person in the streets. I don't think they are going to be great bowlers who slurp beer, and giggle over fart jokes. Hey, that is very American. Go into any number of bars and eavesdrop for a while and tell me what you hear for the most part.
If you want to know what this country is about, you will find out on the PBS educational channels, and not on the sit-coms and reality shows, American Idol or Dancing With The Stars.
If the Promised Land Were the South Pole
I just now realized, if God had said to Abraham, "Your seed shall be my chosen people and I shall give you Antarctica as your promised land", why now, there would be peace in the Middle East.
Why did God have to put the promised land smack dab in the middle of a bunch of Arab nations?
Why did God have to put the promised land smack dab in the middle of a bunch of Arab nations?
What? You dont’t bowl!?
What? You don't bowl! I say if you are warped twisted S.O.B. despised by all your children and ex-wives, who can balance the budget, fix health care, and keep us out of wars, then you have MY vote. I don't give a crap if you bowl, or collect stamps.
I figure anyone who would WANT to be president must be kind of weird anyway. I mean, people shoot at you, and the rest of your life is not your own.
Oh, here is a good one: "Every time I appoint someone to high office, I create 10 enemies and one ingrate." Some president said that. I am too tired to Google for it right now.
Oh, and the j-ass at the New York Times who said that Obama should show us some human side, like bowling a 60, so we will know that he knows the everyday man in the street..... well, here is news for you JERK. Nowadays, no one has the time or money to bowl, because they have lost their jobs, the bank is foreclosing on their house, and they are too busy at the food pantry trying to stretch their meager budget to put food on the table at the end of the month.
I figure anyone who would WANT to be president must be kind of weird anyway. I mean, people shoot at you, and the rest of your life is not your own.
Oh, here is a good one: "Every time I appoint someone to high office, I create 10 enemies and one ingrate." Some president said that. I am too tired to Google for it right now.
Oh, and the j-ass at the New York Times who said that Obama should show us some human side, like bowling a 60, so we will know that he knows the everyday man in the street..... well, here is news for you JERK. Nowadays, no one has the time or money to bowl, because they have lost their jobs, the bank is foreclosing on their house, and they are too busy at the food pantry trying to stretch their meager budget to put food on the table at the end of the month.
We can't afford to run out of wars!
Well, if it is true that war heroes, generals, and ex-prisoner's of war make the best political leaders, then we cannot afford to elect leaders who will keep us out of war, because, without war, where will the future generations to come find their brilliant, brave selfless political leadership?
Do your part! Invade foreign soil!
Do your part! Invade foreign soil!
Herodotus: Imperial Hubris to Catastrophic Retribution
Initially, I subscribed to The New Yorker in the hopes of becoming an intellectual.
But they actually have some fascinating articles.
This week's fascinating article, by Daniel Mendelsohn, entitled Arms and the Man, is about the ancient historian, Herodotus, and his nine volume account of the Persian Wars (490 to 479 B.C.E.)
Apparently, this history was the first substantial narrative of anything ever to be written.
Perhaps Herodotus suffered from some strange compulsive disorder, which came to be called prose, and the world has been emulating him ever since, until prose became blogs.
I just now dove into the article and plucked out these sentences:
Herodotus' overarching theme: the seemingly inevitable movement from imperial hubris to catastrophic retribution.
...
The unstable leader of a ruthlessly centralized authoritarian state is a nightmare vision that has plagued the sleep of liberal democracies ever since Herodotus created it.
But they actually have some fascinating articles.
This week's fascinating article, by Daniel Mendelsohn, entitled Arms and the Man, is about the ancient historian, Herodotus, and his nine volume account of the Persian Wars (490 to 479 B.C.E.)
Apparently, this history was the first substantial narrative of anything ever to be written.
Perhaps Herodotus suffered from some strange compulsive disorder, which came to be called prose, and the world has been emulating him ever since, until prose became blogs.
I just now dove into the article and plucked out these sentences:
Herodotus' overarching theme: the seemingly inevitable movement from imperial hubris to catastrophic retribution.
...
The unstable leader of a ruthlessly centralized authoritarian state is a nightmare vision that has plagued the sleep of liberal democracies ever since Herodotus created it.
The Dynasty Factor
I am reading "The Family, The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty" by Kitty Kelley.
It occurs to me that there are various family dynasties, both in politics and business, which naturally seek hegemony (leadership).
The Kennedy family is another example in politics. The Rocafeller family is an example in business.
Many children from such families have achieved high positions of leadership. Some have done quite a bit to improve the human condition I am sure.
But, it occurs to me that someone born and bred in such a dynastic family cannot hope to relate to the common many in the street in the same manner as someone who has risen to power from poor surroundings, from a family which lacks prominence and visibility.
Obviously, I think of Obama as I write this.
I hope to post more about Ms. Kelly's book on the Bush Dynasty.
I am not trying to be cruel. Rather, I believe that now is an important point in history to reflect upon such issues.
It occurs to me that there are various family dynasties, both in politics and business, which naturally seek hegemony (leadership).
The Kennedy family is another example in politics. The Rocafeller family is an example in business.
Many children from such families have achieved high positions of leadership. Some have done quite a bit to improve the human condition I am sure.
But, it occurs to me that someone born and bred in such a dynastic family cannot hope to relate to the common many in the street in the same manner as someone who has risen to power from poor surroundings, from a family which lacks prominence and visibility.
Obviously, I think of Obama as I write this.
I hope to post more about Ms. Kelly's book on the Bush Dynasty.
I am not trying to be cruel. Rather, I believe that now is an important point in history to reflect upon such issues.
Virtual Classrooms and IRC Chat Channels
I had a great idea for how St. John's College in Annapolis Md (and in Sante Fe NM) could place a webcam and a mic in each and every seminar classroom, where in Tuesday and Thursday evenings, for 2 or 3 hours, the 100 Great Books readings are discussed over the 4 years. They could have channels in ustream.tv with a show broadcast for each seminar. All that wonderful conversation is, in some sense going to waste, because people around the world who would like to participate in such readings and seminars, cannot participate in person.
Broadcasting these seminars would cost almost nothing, except the effort of someone caring enough to implement it, but the benefits to society would be enormous.
http://www.csun.edu/~webteach/mirc/whatis.html
Broadcasting these seminars would cost almost nothing, except the effort of someone caring enough to implement it, but the benefits to society would be enormous.
http://www.csun.edu/~webteach/mirc/whatis.html
Turning the Cheek and Loving Enemies
I recently watched a documentary on PBS (educational TV) about the lives of veterans who were severely disabled in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Several spoke with bitterness how the 9/11 tragedy inspired them to voluntarily enlist. One recalled how Bush stood on the rubble with a bull-horn, declaring that we will pursue the evil powers and smoke them out of their caves.
Right wing conservative Christian politicians (or perhaps it is more accurate to say Protestant) stress the importance of a political leader accepting Jesus as his personal savior.
I cannot help but wonder whatever happened to the part about "turning the other cheek", or loving and forgiving our enemies. Who is an enemy if not Osama bin Laden? Why do the words of Jesus not apply to such an enemy?
Had we "turned the other cheek" in the case of the 9/11 Trade Center attack, how would that have changed the past 5 years of history?
I cannot help but notice the hypocrisy in those who would confuse church and state.
How could someone who sincerely accepts Jesus as his leader be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces? People worry that Obama attended Rev. Wright's services. Well, what about a would-be commander in chief who takes a pacifist like Jesus for his pastor?
I do not think it is wise for religious or spiritual people to seek public office. And, I feel that an atheist or agnostic is capable of being a highly moral, ethical leader.
Marcus Aurelius was perhaps the only real life philosopher-king that Plato envisions in the republic. And Marcus Aurelius rejected the new and innovative religion of Christianity as his personal religion. Aurelius was the pupil of Epictetus. And Epictetus very likely led a more wholesome life than many television mega-church ministers.
Several spoke with bitterness how the 9/11 tragedy inspired them to voluntarily enlist. One recalled how Bush stood on the rubble with a bull-horn, declaring that we will pursue the evil powers and smoke them out of their caves.
Right wing conservative Christian politicians (or perhaps it is more accurate to say Protestant) stress the importance of a political leader accepting Jesus as his personal savior.
I cannot help but wonder whatever happened to the part about "turning the other cheek", or loving and forgiving our enemies. Who is an enemy if not Osama bin Laden? Why do the words of Jesus not apply to such an enemy?
Had we "turned the other cheek" in the case of the 9/11 Trade Center attack, how would that have changed the past 5 years of history?
I cannot help but notice the hypocrisy in those who would confuse church and state.
How could someone who sincerely accepts Jesus as his leader be a Commander in Chief of the armed forces? People worry that Obama attended Rev. Wright's services. Well, what about a would-be commander in chief who takes a pacifist like Jesus for his pastor?
I do not think it is wise for religious or spiritual people to seek public office. And, I feel that an atheist or agnostic is capable of being a highly moral, ethical leader.
Marcus Aurelius was perhaps the only real life philosopher-king that Plato envisions in the republic. And Marcus Aurelius rejected the new and innovative religion of Christianity as his personal religion. Aurelius was the pupil of Epictetus. And Epictetus very likely led a more wholesome life than many television mega-church ministers.
Associated Press Misuse of Word Stolid
Misuse of the word "stolid" :
Some of Clinton's most stolid congressional boosters — other New York lawmakers — were preparing a group endorsement Thursday afternoon of Obama. - By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
http://dictionary.die.net/stolid
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Stolid [L. stolidus.]
Hopelessly insensible or stupid; not easily aroused or
excited; dull; impassive; foolish.
Some of Clinton's most stolid congressional boosters — other New York lawmakers — were preparing a group endorsement Thursday afternoon of Obama. - By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
http://dictionary.die.net/stolid
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Stolid [L. stolidus.]
Hopelessly insensible or stupid; not easily aroused or
excited; dull; impassive; foolish.
Doomed To Be Free
Sartre, on page one of "Being and Nothingness" states that we are "doomed to be free" since the very act of giving up our freedom would require an exercise of freedom.
We see freewill choice throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
God presents all of the creatures to Adam, for Adam to name, and for Adam to choose a suitable companion. Of course, Adam finds no suitable companion amongst the animals. Only then does God place Adam into a deep sleep, curiously reminiscent of surgical anesthesia and creates Eve.
We hear Moses saying to his people in the wilderness, "This day I place before you life and death. Choose therefore life." But it is still a choice.
The sons of Aaron choose to offer "strange incense" which has not been authorized by God, and the earth swallows them up.
Queen Esther's uncle, Mordecai, says to her "You have it in your power if you choose, to help your people. If you choose not to, then God will arrange for the help to come by some other means, but you shall not share in the reward."
When the archangel Gabriel comes to the virgin Mary, he essentially offers her a choice, and waits for her answer. Only when Mary answers "so let it be unto thy handmaiden", does the power of the Most High overshadow her and work the conception and incarnation.
Even Jesus says "No man takes my life. It is given to me to lay down my life, and to take it up again."
We see freewill choice throughout the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
God presents all of the creatures to Adam, for Adam to name, and for Adam to choose a suitable companion. Of course, Adam finds no suitable companion amongst the animals. Only then does God place Adam into a deep sleep, curiously reminiscent of surgical anesthesia and creates Eve.
We hear Moses saying to his people in the wilderness, "This day I place before you life and death. Choose therefore life." But it is still a choice.
The sons of Aaron choose to offer "strange incense" which has not been authorized by God, and the earth swallows them up.
Queen Esther's uncle, Mordecai, says to her "You have it in your power if you choose, to help your people. If you choose not to, then God will arrange for the help to come by some other means, but you shall not share in the reward."
When the archangel Gabriel comes to the virgin Mary, he essentially offers her a choice, and waits for her answer. Only when Mary answers "so let it be unto thy handmaiden", does the power of the Most High overshadow her and work the conception and incarnation.
Even Jesus says "No man takes my life. It is given to me to lay down my life, and to take it up again."
Affair With The Reposed (creative writing)
I am not speaking to you now. I am speaking to that other person (over
there)... you see. Oh, I guess you can't see from where you are. But that
other person has been reading me for a while now. They sort of started
reading by accident, out of curiosity. But then, as they read, they began
to know not just the words, but me, behind the words. And as they read, I
opened up to them, and they opened up to me. And I showed them more
and more of myself. I exposed myself slowly. I stripped before their very
eyes until I was as naked as the wrestlers in the Palaestra. But then, I
stripped down even more, exposing the atoms of Lucretius. And before
they could catch their breath, or say no and leave the room, I stripped
down to the very waves of Patanjali. But for all my nakedness, they never
came to know the me that I know. They fell in love with the me that they
thought I was, and that me became them, but a them they shall never
show to me. So now, there they are, over there, looking somewhere else
than my direction. And now, I feel slightly cold, being so naked. But that is
ok, because if it weren't for being that someone else that they love, I
would never have been anyone at all. And it is the love which matters
really, not the self. Is this not so?
We never think of titles until the end. We never know until its over. So
now I must think of some title, or perhaps, epitaph for the cenotaph:
"Affair with the Reposed."
there)... you see. Oh, I guess you can't see from where you are. But that
other person has been reading me for a while now. They sort of started
reading by accident, out of curiosity. But then, as they read, they began
to know not just the words, but me, behind the words. And as they read, I
opened up to them, and they opened up to me. And I showed them more
and more of myself. I exposed myself slowly. I stripped before their very
eyes until I was as naked as the wrestlers in the Palaestra. But then, I
stripped down even more, exposing the atoms of Lucretius. And before
they could catch their breath, or say no and leave the room, I stripped
down to the very waves of Patanjali. But for all my nakedness, they never
came to know the me that I know. They fell in love with the me that they
thought I was, and that me became them, but a them they shall never
show to me. So now, there they are, over there, looking somewhere else
than my direction. And now, I feel slightly cold, being so naked. But that is
ok, because if it weren't for being that someone else that they love, I
would never have been anyone at all. And it is the love which matters
really, not the self. Is this not so?
We never think of titles until the end. We never know until its over. So
now I must think of some title, or perhaps, epitaph for the cenotaph:
"Affair with the Reposed."
The Civil Wrongs Movement & Race Card
McCain said:
"Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.
I say:
It was not so very long ago that Gov. George Wallace spoke of the "civil wrongs movement."
I call this "Liar's Poker" and I would rather see someone play the race card, than race to play cards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
Lets be honest. Many whites do not want a person of color. Many males do not want a woman in the white house. And many Christians are terrified of having a Mormon elected.
I sense a whiff of hypocrisy.
But suddenly, we abolish slavery, give women the vote, integrate the schools.. and now we feel we can stand upon high moral ground.
"Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong."
The aide was suggesting McCain had been wrongfully accused.
I say:
It was not so very long ago that Gov. George Wallace spoke of the "civil wrongs movement."
I call this "Liar's Poker" and I would rather see someone play the race card, than race to play cards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell
Lets be honest. Many whites do not want a person of color. Many males do not want a woman in the white house. And many Christians are terrified of having a Mormon elected.
I sense a whiff of hypocrisy.
But suddenly, we abolish slavery, give women the vote, integrate the schools.. and now we feel we can stand upon high moral ground.
Sartre With Warheads
Here is a sentence I just now encountered in Yahoo News:
"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week."
Is the word "existential" appropriate in this context?
Is everything that exists "existential?"
"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week."
Is the word "existential" appropriate in this context?
Is everything that exists "existential?"
Wisdom, Number, Measure, Hunger, Thirst
When we dwell as pedestrians in a land, we behold the scenery from the most intimate detail and perspective, but that very closeness and intimacy in perspective prevents us from seeing symmetry, intention and design on a grander scale, bearing profounder implications. If we ascend to a mountain peak, we lose discernment of much of the finer details, but we can begin to recognize the "lay of the land" and its geography. From an orbiting space station, we can perceive global structure. And from vantage point of another galaxy, we may comprehend cosmic design.
When we seek Divine intention, design, laws, and principles in Nature, we consider NUMBER to be the highest authority of truth. We seek mathematical certainty. Mathematical proof is the hallmark of modern science.
The Bible also associated "wisdom" with "number". We find "wisdom" and "number" mentioned together in three verses of the King James Bible:
Job 38:37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
Psalms 90:12 So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
In Job, it is our inability to number and measure creation which exhorts us to humility and surrender to the Divine Will.
In the Psalms, it is the measure of our temporal finitude which gives us pause for the reflection which leads to wisdom.
In the Book of Revelation, it is a precise number which reveals to us that person who is an embodiment of evil.
We never find "wisdom" and "measure" mentioned in the same verse in the Bible, not even in the Books of Apocrypha. Measure is a human activity and not a Divine activity.
We first encounter the word "measure" conjunction with "cubit" in Exodus 26:2 "The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure." When King Solomon is in the act of consecrating the newly finished Temple, he suddenly exclaims: 1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? "
A "cubit" is the length of a man's forearm, which is subjective and variable, not objective, absolute and unchanging.
In Hebrew, cubit is 'ammah; i.e., "mother of the arm," the fore-arm, is a word derived from the Latin cubitus, the lower arm. It is difficult to determine the exact length of this measure, from the uncertainty whether it included the entire length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, or only from the elbow to the root of the hand at the wrist. The probability is that the longer was the original cubit. The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. This is the same as the Egyptian measurements. A rod or staff the measure of a cubit is called in Judg. 3:16 _gomed_, which literally means a "cut," something "cut off."
The Septuagint and Vulgate render it "span."
The earliest mention of "measure" is in conjunction with the precise instructions for building the Tabernacle: Exodus 26:2 The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure.
The third mention of "measure" occurs together with the first appearance of the word "unrighteousness" in relation to dishonesty in trade: Leviticus 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
Mathematicians consider "Number Theory" to be the Queen of all Mathematics. Number Theory deals with such properties of number as Odd or Even, Perfect numbers (which are the sum of their prime factors), and with such properties as "excess" and "deficiency" in multiplication.
The number Nine is a number with several very interesting properties. Nine is a Trinity of Trinities, in the sense that it contains the number three thrice times. In a Greek Orthodox liturgy, the priest or deacon will incense a Bishop NINE times, but the icon of Christ only three times because the Bishop, when vested and serving in his sacerdotal capacity, is considered to be the "Living Icon" of Christ.
Hindus consider NINE to be a divine number, because it may interact with any other number in multiplication, and yet somehow, retain its identity. Two times Nine equals 18, and 1 + 8 = 9. Three times Nine equals 27, and 2+7 = 9. Four times Nine equals 36, and 3 + 6 = 9. So Nine is perfect in this respect, whereas the other numbers are sometimes "excessive" in this respect and other times "deficient". Two times Seven equals 14, and 1+4=5. Three times Seven equals 21, and 2+1=3. Therefore Seven is deficient in these equations. Three times Five equals 15, and 1+5 = 6. Five times Five equals 25, and 2+5=8. Number Five is excessive in these equations.
If you look at all the sacred scriptures of all the Religions, you will discover that there are only certain sentences or phrases in which is a WHOLE WORLD OF THEOLOGY.
For example, Mother Theresa put Christ's final words from the Cross, "I thirst", on her convent wall.
John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, "I thirst".
How many times in our lives might we read this verse, and pass it by, not seeing the entire world hidden in two words?
A world hidden in a word is a pearl hidden in a field.
Hidden, amidst all the other verses of the Gospels, "out of context", is something which opens up a whole world in the mind.
In a certain way, the very nature of our thought processes, is a
non-sequitur. Hence, structure and form in writing is, in a sense, illusion, or maya. But we come to think of that ordered "structure" as the nature of reality.
Regarding the "I Thirst" of Mother Theresa, Jallaludin Rumi once said, "Do not seek water, for water is EVERYWHERE! Seek THIRST!" For without the THIRST the water is of no value to you.
In the Psalms, "O Lord, I have thirsted after Thee like a deer in a waterless land."
I have written the preceding as a prelude to the consideration of the motif of "hunger" and "thirst" in the Scriptures.
It is most curious that there are a total of NINE verses in the entire King James Version which mention "hunger" and "thirst" in the same verse. The word "hunger" always appears first, followed by the word "thirst".
It is significant that the word hunger should always appear first in these verses. We know that thirst will afflict us much sooner than hunger, and the pangs of thirst are far more intense and severe than hunger pangs. We can endure a much longer period of time without food than we can without fluids. Why is it that Hunger is always mentioned first, and not Thirst? Perhaps "thirst and hunger" is the human order, whereas "hunger and thirst" is the Divine order.
The word "hunger" makes its first appearance in Scriptures (Exodus 16:3) PRIOR TO the first appearance of the word "thirst" (Exodus 17:3 ).
This same consistent word order may be observed in the Apocrypha as well; "hunger" always precedes "thirst". In the Apocrypha, we also find this most unusual verse: 2 esdras 15:58 "They that be in the mountains shall die of hunger, and eat their own flesh, and drink their own blood, for very hunger of bread, and thirst of water." We may see in this verse the beginnings of the imagery of the Eucharist.
Because NINE is an ODD number (rather than an EVEN number), there is a mid-most verse, the FIFTH of the verses:
5.) John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Indeed, this is a most central verse, portraying Jesus as the Bread of Life and the Living Waters.
The first occurrence of hunger, (which appears BEFORE the first occurrence of THIRST), Exodus 16:3 "And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.
The first occurrence of thirst, which inspires murmuring against Moses and God: Exodus 17:3 "And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? "
We see here the totally Human aspect of hunger and thirst, the fallen nature of humanity, driven by appetites and desires.
The second occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
2.) Nehemiah 9:15 "And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them."
This is the totally Divine aspect of God, who provides food and drink, and sustains all creatures.
The third occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
3.) Isaiah 49:10 "They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them."
Here we see a prefiguring of the Book of Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are no more tears, no more hunger or thirst or desire.
The fourth occurrence is
4.) Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
We see a UNIFICATION of hunger and thirst as ONE, no longer two, and the object of the desire is no longer physical food and water, but Righteousness. But what or Who is that Righteousness?
The fifth occurrence is
5.) John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
Remember that this is the MIDDLE-MOST of the nine verses, about which the other eight verses are symmetrically balanced. This verse answers our previous question "Who is that righteousness for which the blessed hunger and thirst."
We may note that at the Last Supper, or Mystical Supper, the Institution of the Eucharist, Christ offers the broken bread FIRST, and afterwards the Cup. It is logical that the Bread or Body must be broken first, before there is Blood.
The sixth occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is 6.) Romans 12:20 "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."
This is the fulfillment of seeing the Divine Image of God in all others, even enemies. And it is We, the Mother Theresa, who now assume the role of the God-Man Christ, as we minister unto our enemies and are perhaps rent asunder, bleeding. St. Athanasius said "God became man, so that Man might become God".
The seventh occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
7.) 1 Corinthians 4:11 "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place", which is the Disciples/Apostles in "imitation of Christ", taking up their cross.
The eight occurrence is
8.) 2 Corinthians 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
The ninth occurrence is
9.) Revelation 7:16 "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.". Here we see that time and space, heaven and earth, pass away, and all souls dwell in the very fabric of God, which now becomes their space, light, raiment, sustenance and all things. These souls dwell in "the bosom of Abraham".
The verses 'The Kingdom of God is WITHIN' and 'in my Father's house are many mansions' are thought provoking verses. I recently learned that it may also be translated "the kingdom of heaven is AMONG you" , which has very different implications.
If we look at the Book of Revelation, in the chapters surrounding ch. 10.... (where it says...'God shall wipe away every tear').... we see that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER (CH 10, verse 6), and "heavens and earth
shall be rolled up as a scroll" (no more SPACE).
So, time and space ceases, and God becomes raiment, light, air, food, etc. An image which is faithful to St. Paul's words, "..in HIM we live and move and have our being--Acts 17:28" and, Acts 17: 27 "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us."
This passage, Ch. 10:6 in Revelation, depicts time and space itself passing away, and all dwell WITHIN God, within the "fabric of God" so to speak.
We do see in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that Lazarus is "in the bosom of Abraham", which is metaphorical, but supports the notion of what is described in Revelation
What is interesting is that Christianity condemns notions of Pantheism, that God IS the universe; yet in the final analysis, based on what the Book of Revelation describes, God literally BECOMES the Universe, once the Universe passes away.
In light of the above understanding of Revelation, it would seem that the "many mansions" are WITHIN God Himself.
(written 9-29-2000)
When we seek Divine intention, design, laws, and principles in Nature, we consider NUMBER to be the highest authority of truth. We seek mathematical certainty. Mathematical proof is the hallmark of modern science.
The Bible also associated "wisdom" with "number". We find "wisdom" and "number" mentioned together in three verses of the King James Bible:
Job 38:37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,
Psalms 90:12 So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
In Job, it is our inability to number and measure creation which exhorts us to humility and surrender to the Divine Will.
In the Psalms, it is the measure of our temporal finitude which gives us pause for the reflection which leads to wisdom.
In the Book of Revelation, it is a precise number which reveals to us that person who is an embodiment of evil.
We never find "wisdom" and "measure" mentioned in the same verse in the Bible, not even in the Books of Apocrypha. Measure is a human activity and not a Divine activity.
We first encounter the word "measure" conjunction with "cubit" in Exodus 26:2 "The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure." When King Solomon is in the act of consecrating the newly finished Temple, he suddenly exclaims: 1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded? "
A "cubit" is the length of a man's forearm, which is subjective and variable, not objective, absolute and unchanging.
In Hebrew, cubit is 'ammah; i.e., "mother of the arm," the fore-arm, is a word derived from the Latin cubitus, the lower arm. It is difficult to determine the exact length of this measure, from the uncertainty whether it included the entire length from the elbow to the tip of the longest finger, or only from the elbow to the root of the hand at the wrist. The probability is that the longer was the original cubit. The common computation as to the length of the cubit makes it 20.24 inches for the ordinary cubit, and 21.888 inches for the sacred one. This is the same as the Egyptian measurements. A rod or staff the measure of a cubit is called in Judg. 3:16 _gomed_, which literally means a "cut," something "cut off."
The Septuagint and Vulgate render it "span."
The earliest mention of "measure" is in conjunction with the precise instructions for building the Tabernacle: Exodus 26:2 The length of one curtain shall be eight and twenty cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: and every one of the curtains shall have one measure.
The third mention of "measure" occurs together with the first appearance of the word "unrighteousness" in relation to dishonesty in trade: Leviticus 19:35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
Mathematicians consider "Number Theory" to be the Queen of all Mathematics. Number Theory deals with such properties of number as Odd or Even, Perfect numbers (which are the sum of their prime factors), and with such properties as "excess" and "deficiency" in multiplication.
The number Nine is a number with several very interesting properties. Nine is a Trinity of Trinities, in the sense that it contains the number three thrice times. In a Greek Orthodox liturgy, the priest or deacon will incense a Bishop NINE times, but the icon of Christ only three times because the Bishop, when vested and serving in his sacerdotal capacity, is considered to be the "Living Icon" of Christ.
Hindus consider NINE to be a divine number, because it may interact with any other number in multiplication, and yet somehow, retain its identity. Two times Nine equals 18, and 1 + 8 = 9. Three times Nine equals 27, and 2+7 = 9. Four times Nine equals 36, and 3 + 6 = 9. So Nine is perfect in this respect, whereas the other numbers are sometimes "excessive" in this respect and other times "deficient". Two times Seven equals 14, and 1+4=5. Three times Seven equals 21, and 2+1=3. Therefore Seven is deficient in these equations. Three times Five equals 15, and 1+5 = 6. Five times Five equals 25, and 2+5=8. Number Five is excessive in these equations.
If you look at all the sacred scriptures of all the Religions, you will discover that there are only certain sentences or phrases in which is a WHOLE WORLD OF THEOLOGY.
For example, Mother Theresa put Christ's final words from the Cross, "I thirst", on her convent wall.
John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now
accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, "I thirst".
How many times in our lives might we read this verse, and pass it by, not seeing the entire world hidden in two words?
A world hidden in a word is a pearl hidden in a field.
Hidden, amidst all the other verses of the Gospels, "out of context", is something which opens up a whole world in the mind.
In a certain way, the very nature of our thought processes, is a
non-sequitur. Hence, structure and form in writing is, in a sense, illusion, or maya. But we come to think of that ordered "structure" as the nature of reality.
Regarding the "I Thirst" of Mother Theresa, Jallaludin Rumi once said, "Do not seek water, for water is EVERYWHERE! Seek THIRST!" For without the THIRST the water is of no value to you.
In the Psalms, "O Lord, I have thirsted after Thee like a deer in a waterless land."
I have written the preceding as a prelude to the consideration of the motif of "hunger" and "thirst" in the Scriptures.
It is most curious that there are a total of NINE verses in the entire King James Version which mention "hunger" and "thirst" in the same verse. The word "hunger" always appears first, followed by the word "thirst".
It is significant that the word hunger should always appear first in these verses. We know that thirst will afflict us much sooner than hunger, and the pangs of thirst are far more intense and severe than hunger pangs. We can endure a much longer period of time without food than we can without fluids. Why is it that Hunger is always mentioned first, and not Thirst? Perhaps "thirst and hunger" is the human order, whereas "hunger and thirst" is the Divine order.
The word "hunger" makes its first appearance in Scriptures (Exodus 16:3) PRIOR TO the first appearance of the word "thirst" (Exodus 17:3 ).
This same consistent word order may be observed in the Apocrypha as well; "hunger" always precedes "thirst". In the Apocrypha, we also find this most unusual verse: 2 esdras 15:58 "They that be in the mountains shall die of hunger, and eat their own flesh, and drink their own blood, for very hunger of bread, and thirst of water." We may see in this verse the beginnings of the imagery of the Eucharist.
Because NINE is an ODD number (rather than an EVEN number), there is a mid-most verse, the FIFTH of the verses:
5.) John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Indeed, this is a most central verse, portraying Jesus as the Bread of Life and the Living Waters.
The first occurrence of hunger, (which appears BEFORE the first occurrence of THIRST), Exodus 16:3 "And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.
The first occurrence of thirst, which inspires murmuring against Moses and God: Exodus 17:3 "And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? "
We see here the totally Human aspect of hunger and thirst, the fallen nature of humanity, driven by appetites and desires.
The second occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
2.) Nehemiah 9:15 "And gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst, and promisedst them that they should go in to possess the land which thou hadst sworn to give them."
This is the totally Divine aspect of God, who provides food and drink, and sustains all creatures.
The third occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
3.) Isaiah 49:10 "They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them."
Here we see a prefiguring of the Book of Revelation, the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are no more tears, no more hunger or thirst or desire.
The fourth occurrence is
4.) Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
We see a UNIFICATION of hunger and thirst as ONE, no longer two, and the object of the desire is no longer physical food and water, but Righteousness. But what or Who is that Righteousness?
The fifth occurrence is
5.) John 6:35 "And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst."
Remember that this is the MIDDLE-MOST of the nine verses, about which the other eight verses are symmetrically balanced. This verse answers our previous question "Who is that righteousness for which the blessed hunger and thirst."
We may note that at the Last Supper, or Mystical Supper, the Institution of the Eucharist, Christ offers the broken bread FIRST, and afterwards the Cup. It is logical that the Bread or Body must be broken first, before there is Blood.
The sixth occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is 6.) Romans 12:20 "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."
This is the fulfillment of seeing the Divine Image of God in all others, even enemies. And it is We, the Mother Theresa, who now assume the role of the God-Man Christ, as we minister unto our enemies and are perhaps rent asunder, bleeding. St. Athanasius said "God became man, so that Man might become God".
The seventh occurrence of "hunger and thirst" is
7.) 1 Corinthians 4:11 "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place", which is the Disciples/Apostles in "imitation of Christ", taking up their cross.
The eight occurrence is
8.) 2 Corinthians 11:27 In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.
The ninth occurrence is
9.) Revelation 7:16 "They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.". Here we see that time and space, heaven and earth, pass away, and all souls dwell in the very fabric of God, which now becomes their space, light, raiment, sustenance and all things. These souls dwell in "the bosom of Abraham".
The verses 'The Kingdom of God is WITHIN' and 'in my Father's house are many mansions' are thought provoking verses. I recently learned that it may also be translated "the kingdom of heaven is AMONG you" , which has very different implications.
If we look at the Book of Revelation, in the chapters surrounding ch. 10.... (where it says...'God shall wipe away every tear').... we see that THERE SHALL BE TIME NO LONGER (CH 10, verse 6), and "heavens and earth
shall be rolled up as a scroll" (no more SPACE).
So, time and space ceases, and God becomes raiment, light, air, food, etc. An image which is faithful to St. Paul's words, "..in HIM we live and move and have our being--Acts 17:28" and, Acts 17: 27 "That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us."
This passage, Ch. 10:6 in Revelation, depicts time and space itself passing away, and all dwell WITHIN God, within the "fabric of God" so to speak.
We do see in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man that Lazarus is "in the bosom of Abraham", which is metaphorical, but supports the notion of what is described in Revelation
What is interesting is that Christianity condemns notions of Pantheism, that God IS the universe; yet in the final analysis, based on what the Book of Revelation describes, God literally BECOMES the Universe, once the Universe passes away.
In light of the above understanding of Revelation, it would seem that the "many mansions" are WITHIN God Himself.
(written 9-29-2000)
Barack Obama’s Lack of Experience
I am told that George Washington lacked experience, and he seemed to do O.K.
Too much experience is not always a good thing. If it were, then we would not have amended the constitution to limit each president to 2 terms in office.
Perhaps it is good to have less experience. People with too much experience can become jaded, corrupt, manipulative, scheming.
No one person can KNOW everything. But anyone who is a team player can assemble panels of experts and take their advice. BUT, one person CAN desire everything, or should I say covet, and plot to usurp more power for the executive office than it should have.
The problems of our economy and our environment cannot be eliminated by any one person. BUT, one person CAN make them far worse through poor judgment.
The forces which threaten our economy and our environment have been at work for a century or longer. Perhaps they cannot be reversed. Doom can be delayed through prudent governance, but the pattern cannot be reversed.
The problems of any nation lie not in the character of the leader, but in the character of the people. If the general public itself is prodigal, than no Solomon, however wise, can save the public from its prodigality.
Gandhi once said "you must yourself become the very change which you desire to see in the world."
Gandhi was right, but will the public take heed of such wisdom? I doubt it.
Too much experience is not always a good thing. If it were, then we would not have amended the constitution to limit each president to 2 terms in office.
Perhaps it is good to have less experience. People with too much experience can become jaded, corrupt, manipulative, scheming.
No one person can KNOW everything. But anyone who is a team player can assemble panels of experts and take their advice. BUT, one person CAN desire everything, or should I say covet, and plot to usurp more power for the executive office than it should have.
The problems of our economy and our environment cannot be eliminated by any one person. BUT, one person CAN make them far worse through poor judgment.
The forces which threaten our economy and our environment have been at work for a century or longer. Perhaps they cannot be reversed. Doom can be delayed through prudent governance, but the pattern cannot be reversed.
The problems of any nation lie not in the character of the leader, but in the character of the people. If the general public itself is prodigal, than no Solomon, however wise, can save the public from its prodigality.
Gandhi once said "you must yourself become the very change which you desire to see in the world."
Gandhi was right, but will the public take heed of such wisdom? I doubt it.
The REAL sin of Victoria Olsteen
I have on my bookshelves here, selected writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin, two founders and architects of the Protestant Reformation. I have not looked at these books in a few years now, but, as I recall, when one does read through them, one does not find very much emphasis on Jesus as a friend and personal savior. Various historians of religion point out that prior to the 19th century, Jesus was seen as playing a key role in the plan of salvation, perhaps in the sense of substitutional atonement, but the modern day emphasis on Jesus as a friend and "personal savior", is only something that evolved in the past 200 years. I have read extensively in early Nicean writings, the Philokalia, and Aquinas' Summa, and I can say that those writings also mention little of this present day notion of Jesus as friend and savior.
I realize that many people have been able to turn their lives around through religious faith, and escape the bondage of alcoholism, drugs, promiscuity, gambling, and a host of other evils. Some find their salvation in such things as 12 step programs, which simply refer to "a higher power".
Our sitting president Bush came to my mind today. I thought about the many who have walked into a store front church, and found their commitment to faith and sobriety through some ordinary pastor's preaching. But George W. Bush had to take a walk along the beach with the very Billy Graham himself, in order to snap out of his alcohol dependency. But then, George Bush is a very special person, so, he needs a very special pastor to convert him.
Gandhi once explained to someone, who had inquired concerning Gandhi's religious beliefs, saying "My religious beliefs are a very personal thing, between myself and God." I felt Gandhi was very wise to give such an answer. I agree with Gandhi.
But modern America can hardly relate to such an attitude. One cannot run for Presidency without standing up at a podium and explaining, in some fashion or other, how they have accepted Jesus as their "personal savior". I often marvel that many and various religions have evolved into the commonality of one person, standing at a podium, with some open book, haranguing a crowd of spectators. Why should so many different religions amount to simply that. Why is faith and worship a public and not a private subjective matter?
I have often wondered whatever it might mean to say "Impersonal savior." I suppose one things of the Hindu impersonal Brahman. Yet preachers seem obsessed with the term "PERSONAL savior."
Last Sunday, I tuned in to Joel Osteen's sermon. I swear, he must have used the term "anointed" several dozen times. It is a catchy word. The likes of Aaron and David were "anointed". There is a Psalm which mentions the oil of anointment running down the beard. I suppose I could use one of the many Biblical search engines, and find all references in scripture to "anointed". I rather imagine that the word "anointed" occurs far more times in Osteen's writings than it does in the Bible.
My thoughts on all these matters tend to align more closely with Steinbeck's idea in the novel "East of Eden". Steinbeck is an unabashed Pelagian. Pelagius debated with Augustine, and lost the argument as far as the West was concerned. Pelagius believe that each human being was naturally endowed with everything that is necessary to make the freewill choice to be good. Were this not so, then why would Jesus tell the adulteress to "go and sin no more." Anyway, Augustine argued that human nature was helpless and hopeless, and only divine grace could accomplish, not reform or transformation, but simply, forgiveness.
There is one passage where one of Steinbeck's characters speaks of a person as being "like a white shirt, that has become soiled, but through much washing and scrubbing (freewill action and choice), it can become white again." Elsewhere a character in "East of Eden" says, "a man can take the Bible and MAKE of it something mighty fine within himself."
Let's take the recent example in the news of Joel Olsteen's wife, and the incident on the airplane. She lives day in and day out with pastor Joel, and must surely said those "magic words" which cause a person to be "born again." Now, the real sin on that airplane, was not whether Mrs. Olsteen assaulted a stewardess. The real sin was that she was proud, and complained about a spill on her chair. The emphasis in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is to be humble, and long-suffering, a servant to all. The monastics of the Egyptian desert would jump at the chance to be humble, and clean up the spill themselves, or take the blame for another. Jesus said the same thing, regarding he who is servant to all, and takes the lowest place, shall be exalted.
I realize that many people have been able to turn their lives around through religious faith, and escape the bondage of alcoholism, drugs, promiscuity, gambling, and a host of other evils. Some find their salvation in such things as 12 step programs, which simply refer to "a higher power".
Our sitting president Bush came to my mind today. I thought about the many who have walked into a store front church, and found their commitment to faith and sobriety through some ordinary pastor's preaching. But George W. Bush had to take a walk along the beach with the very Billy Graham himself, in order to snap out of his alcohol dependency. But then, George Bush is a very special person, so, he needs a very special pastor to convert him.
Gandhi once explained to someone, who had inquired concerning Gandhi's religious beliefs, saying "My religious beliefs are a very personal thing, between myself and God." I felt Gandhi was very wise to give such an answer. I agree with Gandhi.
But modern America can hardly relate to such an attitude. One cannot run for Presidency without standing up at a podium and explaining, in some fashion or other, how they have accepted Jesus as their "personal savior". I often marvel that many and various religions have evolved into the commonality of one person, standing at a podium, with some open book, haranguing a crowd of spectators. Why should so many different religions amount to simply that. Why is faith and worship a public and not a private subjective matter?
I have often wondered whatever it might mean to say "Impersonal savior." I suppose one things of the Hindu impersonal Brahman. Yet preachers seem obsessed with the term "PERSONAL savior."
Last Sunday, I tuned in to Joel Osteen's sermon. I swear, he must have used the term "anointed" several dozen times. It is a catchy word. The likes of Aaron and David were "anointed". There is a Psalm which mentions the oil of anointment running down the beard. I suppose I could use one of the many Biblical search engines, and find all references in scripture to "anointed". I rather imagine that the word "anointed" occurs far more times in Osteen's writings than it does in the Bible.
My thoughts on all these matters tend to align more closely with Steinbeck's idea in the novel "East of Eden". Steinbeck is an unabashed Pelagian. Pelagius debated with Augustine, and lost the argument as far as the West was concerned. Pelagius believe that each human being was naturally endowed with everything that is necessary to make the freewill choice to be good. Were this not so, then why would Jesus tell the adulteress to "go and sin no more." Anyway, Augustine argued that human nature was helpless and hopeless, and only divine grace could accomplish, not reform or transformation, but simply, forgiveness.
There is one passage where one of Steinbeck's characters speaks of a person as being "like a white shirt, that has become soiled, but through much washing and scrubbing (freewill action and choice), it can become white again." Elsewhere a character in "East of Eden" says, "a man can take the Bible and MAKE of it something mighty fine within himself."
Let's take the recent example in the news of Joel Olsteen's wife, and the incident on the airplane. She lives day in and day out with pastor Joel, and must surely said those "magic words" which cause a person to be "born again." Now, the real sin on that airplane, was not whether Mrs. Olsteen assaulted a stewardess. The real sin was that she was proud, and complained about a spill on her chair. The emphasis in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is to be humble, and long-suffering, a servant to all. The monastics of the Egyptian desert would jump at the chance to be humble, and clean up the spill themselves, or take the blame for another. Jesus said the same thing, regarding he who is servant to all, and takes the lowest place, shall be exalted.
Abortion Around Us
Rachel Carson wrote a book "The Sea Around Us."
As you watch your death sentence being signed, is it appropriate to worry about proper penmanship?
We currently face economic collapse, environmental failure, and the ideological threat of extremism equal to Nazi fascism and Communist revolution.
Yet, we reckon abortion high on the list of our political platform agenda.
What is abortion, when you think about it?
Abortion is the intentional termination of life.
California has now outlawed trans-fats. The consumption of trans-fats, in theory, leads to premature termination of life. Improper diet ranks with abortion as a wrongful act. And, in theory, diet can be legislated.
The use of tobacco products brings life to an early end.
Alcoholism is very destructive.
We tried to legislate alcoholic beverages out of existence. This legislative effort was called "Prohibition". The problem was that drinking did not stop, but simply went underground, and became a dominion controlled by criminals.
Abortions were once illegal. Abortion was criminalized.
War involves killing. War is a kind of abortion.
Can we really legislate morality?
Should we stand upon high moral ground when the very fabric of existence is threatened on various fronts?
Should we fret over penmanship as we watch our death sentence being signed?
I think not.
As you watch your death sentence being signed, is it appropriate to worry about proper penmanship?
We currently face economic collapse, environmental failure, and the ideological threat of extremism equal to Nazi fascism and Communist revolution.
Yet, we reckon abortion high on the list of our political platform agenda.
What is abortion, when you think about it?
Abortion is the intentional termination of life.
California has now outlawed trans-fats. The consumption of trans-fats, in theory, leads to premature termination of life. Improper diet ranks with abortion as a wrongful act. And, in theory, diet can be legislated.
The use of tobacco products brings life to an early end.
Alcoholism is very destructive.
We tried to legislate alcoholic beverages out of existence. This legislative effort was called "Prohibition". The problem was that drinking did not stop, but simply went underground, and became a dominion controlled by criminals.
Abortions were once illegal. Abortion was criminalized.
War involves killing. War is a kind of abortion.
Can we really legislate morality?
Should we stand upon high moral ground when the very fabric of existence is threatened on various fronts?
Should we fret over penmanship as we watch our death sentence being signed?
I think not.
McCain the Only Candidate to Fight For Us?
That statement seems a little inaccurate to me.
Viet Nam was not attacking the U.S. Many Americans did not want the U.S. to be involved in a war in Viet Nam. Today, Viet Nam is communist, so the war achieved nothing.
Yes, McCain fought in a war, but, NO I do not see that he was fighting FOR Americans, in the sense of defending Americans against the immanent threat of attack. Perhaps I am missing or overlooking something.
Oh, and, by the way, a president is not OUR commander-in-chief, because WE are not a military society. We are civilians. The president is commander-in-chief of the ARMED FORCES in time of war.
Viet Nam was not attacking the U.S. Many Americans did not want the U.S. to be involved in a war in Viet Nam. Today, Viet Nam is communist, so the war achieved nothing.
Yes, McCain fought in a war, but, NO I do not see that he was fighting FOR Americans, in the sense of defending Americans against the immanent threat of attack. Perhaps I am missing or overlooking something.
Oh, and, by the way, a president is not OUR commander-in-chief, because WE are not a military society. We are civilians. The president is commander-in-chief of the ARMED FORCES in time of war.
Republican’s Over-Use of Term MAVERICK
The term "maverick" has been used dozens, perhaps hundreds of times by the Republicans to describe McCain. With all of their wonderful vetting skills, I doubt if any of them realize that originally, "maverick" means a fat old cow.
But then, with all the bullshit flying around, it stands to reason that there is a cow around here somewheres, by crackie (nothing cosmopolitan about me, nosiree).
MAVERICK: Surname derived from a vocabulary word, originally meaning "unbranded range animal," transferred to forename use. It was the surname of Samuel Maverick (1803-1870), a Texas cattleman who refused to brand his cattle. The word's use as a forename first began in the early 1990s after the release of the movie "Maverick" starring Mel Gibson. The sense of "unconventional person," is first recorded in 1886, and seems to have developed by way of the notion of being "independent, masterless."
But then, with all the bullshit flying around, it stands to reason that there is a cow around here somewheres, by crackie (nothing cosmopolitan about me, nosiree).
MAVERICK: Surname derived from a vocabulary word, originally meaning "unbranded range animal," transferred to forename use. It was the surname of Samuel Maverick (1803-1870), a Texas cattleman who refused to brand his cattle. The word's use as a forename first began in the early 1990s after the release of the movie "Maverick" starring Mel Gibson. The sense of "unconventional person," is first recorded in 1886, and seems to have developed by way of the notion of being "independent, masterless."
Palin: Reform of this country and victory in the war
I am surprised that Palin states in her interview that she unhesitatingly answered YES to the VP offer. I suspect she is lying, simply because it might sound bad to say that she hesitated. Yet, any sound rational person would answer only after some thought and consultation with spouse and family, etc. If Palin IS telling the truth, then such hasty rashness gives me even greater concern.
Then, in the interview, she states that her objective is "Reform of this country and victory in the war." It seems to me that we did "win the war" in the sense that we occupied Iraq, and brought Saddam to trial. It seems more realistic and progress to speak in terms of achieving peace, which is what we have failed to do, rather than some hollow goal of "victory in war."
The only thing which could possibly reform this country would be to TRANSFORM the populace, the average American. In a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people", reform comes from the grass roots UPWARD, and not from the top downwards.
And, I do not see the character of the average American changing much at any time in the near future. If 100 tv channels had Charlie Rose-Wm.Buckley-MeetThePress-CNN type shows, and only 10 channels had Judge-Judy-Simpsons-Reality-MTV, then, I would say that the character of the nation has changed. But the complexion of the media is just the reverse, with educational-intellectual topics in the minority, and situation-comedy in the majority.
I spoke to a wealthy and powerful French entrepreneur today, and asked him whether he prefers Obama or McCain. He said "I prefer Obama, who seems progressive. McCain is an old man, who wants war, and business as usual."
Then, in the interview, she states that her objective is "Reform of this country and victory in the war." It seems to me that we did "win the war" in the sense that we occupied Iraq, and brought Saddam to trial. It seems more realistic and progress to speak in terms of achieving peace, which is what we have failed to do, rather than some hollow goal of "victory in war."
The only thing which could possibly reform this country would be to TRANSFORM the populace, the average American. In a nation "of the people, by the people and for the people", reform comes from the grass roots UPWARD, and not from the top downwards.
And, I do not see the character of the average American changing much at any time in the near future. If 100 tv channels had Charlie Rose-Wm.Buckley-MeetThePress-CNN type shows, and only 10 channels had Judge-Judy-Simpsons-Reality-MTV, then, I would say that the character of the nation has changed. But the complexion of the media is just the reverse, with educational-intellectual topics in the minority, and situation-comedy in the majority.
I spoke to a wealthy and powerful French entrepreneur today, and asked him whether he prefers Obama or McCain. He said "I prefer Obama, who seems progressive. McCain is an old man, who wants war, and business as usual."
When the economy is going down the toilet...
When the economy and the environment are both going down the toilet...I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why the abortion issue looms at the top of party platform positions. A fertilized embryo results from the union of the sperm and the egg. So, why isn't the sperm and egg cell prior to fertilization accorded some human status? Self-gratification and Biblical Onanism is considered sinful. Perhaps we should pass some federal legislation to ban the act of self-gratification. Lots of luck enforcing that one!
The European Common Union nations permit abortion, but find capital punishment executions heinous. America applauds the death penalty, but finds abortion heinous.
McCain is a big war hero for bombing Hanoi, where he killed who knows how many fetuses. What were we doing in Viet Nam anyway? How can we justify that kind of war? Who appointed us the task of making the world a safe place for democracy? Are not other societies then equally entitled to make the world a safe place for theocracy? I am certain that they feel that they too are entitled to destroy the infidel in the name of what is holy and to please the Deity.
And the most obvious thing one can observe about the political conventions of BOTH parties is something that is never mentioned: namely, the obvious mob-like mentality of the crowds, who act like fools, boo, cheer, and pick up on incomplete sentences to chant as mantra slogans. I do not see this as the behavior of educated adults. I see it rather as a circus mentality, and am reminded of the bread-and-circus mentality of ancient Rome in its decline.
Everyone loves a good show and a drama. We love to elect ex-actors. Politicians give quite a performance.
The mobs and the demagogues deserve each other, and deserve their fate.
The European Common Union nations permit abortion, but find capital punishment executions heinous. America applauds the death penalty, but finds abortion heinous.
McCain is a big war hero for bombing Hanoi, where he killed who knows how many fetuses. What were we doing in Viet Nam anyway? How can we justify that kind of war? Who appointed us the task of making the world a safe place for democracy? Are not other societies then equally entitled to make the world a safe place for theocracy? I am certain that they feel that they too are entitled to destroy the infidel in the name of what is holy and to please the Deity.
And the most obvious thing one can observe about the political conventions of BOTH parties is something that is never mentioned: namely, the obvious mob-like mentality of the crowds, who act like fools, boo, cheer, and pick up on incomplete sentences to chant as mantra slogans. I do not see this as the behavior of educated adults. I see it rather as a circus mentality, and am reminded of the bread-and-circus mentality of ancient Rome in its decline.
Everyone loves a good show and a drama. We love to elect ex-actors. Politicians give quite a performance.
The mobs and the demagogues deserve each other, and deserve their fate.
The Sanctity of Unity
The Sanctity of Unity
This morning, I began to think about "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert
Camus.
I turned to my trusty sparknotes and pasted a few excerpts below, with comments of my own.
Albert Camus (1913–1960) is not a philosopher so much as a novelist
with a strong philosophical bent. He is most famous for his novels of
ideas, such as The Stranger and The Plague, both of which are set in
the arid landscape of his native Algeria.
Like existentialism, phenomenology influenced Camus by its effort to
construct a worldview that does not assume that there is some sort of
rational structure to the universe that the human mind can apprehend.
Camus when he first wrote about exile, was a man, far from his home,
who was struggling against a seemingly omnipotent and senselessly
brutal regime.
The central concern of The Myth of Sisyphus is what Camus calls "the
absurd." Camus claims that there is a fundamental conflict between
what we want from the universe (whether it be meaning, order, or
reasons) and what we find in the universe (formless chaos). We will
never find in life itself the meaning that we want to find. Either we will
discover that meaning through a leap of faith, by placing our hopes in
a God beyond this world, or we will conclude that life is meaningless.
Camus opens the essay by asking if this latter conclusion that life is
meaningless necessarily leads one to commit suicide. If life has no
meaning, does that mean life is not worth living? If that were the
case, we would have no option but to make a leap of faith or to
commit suicide, says Camus. Camus is interested in pursuing a third
possibility: that we can accept and live in a world devoid of meaning
or purpose.
This author wonders if our purpose in a meaningless universe is to find
meaning in the meaninglessness, create meaning where there is no
meaning, impose meaning upon that meaninglessness. Perhaps
meaninglessness is a necessary ingredient for freedom. If there is a
pre-existing meaning and order, then that which pre-exists becomes
law for us, and law constricts our freedom.
Stop and think how even the omnipotence of God is threatened by
laws and order. There are two verses in the Bible (Titus 1:2; Hebrews
6:18) which state that "God cannot lie."
Allah of the Qu'ran, on the other hand, is more free and potent than
such an honest-Abe Jehovah, for Islam states that Allah has the power
to abrogate and overturn any and every established rule or command.
Sura 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that
Allah has power over all things?"
Plato presents us with the famous "Euthyphro Dilemma" which asks:
"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by God, or does God
love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"
Honest-Abe-Jehovah is forbidden to lie because of the pre-existing
absolute standard of good and evil to which even God is subject. So
Jehovah loves virtue because of its intrinsic objective absolute nature
as something good. Allah on the other hand, is more powerful since
Allah is free to designate whatever Allah pleases as pious and
virtuous, and is not even bound by Allah's own judgment, but may
abrogate that judgment at any time and designate something
completely different as pious and virtuous.
Confronted by meaninglessness, we seek transcendence to rise above
and escape.
Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So
long as he accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd
struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
Camus gives four examples of the absurd life: the seducer, who
pursues the passions of the moment; the actor, who compresses the
passions of hundreds of lives into a stage career; the conqueror, or
rebel, whose political struggle focuses his energies; and the artist,
who creates entire worlds. Absurd art does not try to explain
experience, but simply describes it. It presents a certain worldview
that deals with particular matters rather than aiming for universal
themes.
Camus discusses the very meaning of existence and life itself.
This author observes that to justify absurdity is to impose a measure of
order upon it.
We can be certain of only two things: our "nostalgia for unity" and our
inability to find an answer in the world.
Think about "unity." We study the "UNI"verse in a "UNIV"ersity where
we constantly strive for a "G.U.T." (Grand Unifying Theory) Our various
religions stress "MONO"theism, or the "UNITY" of the Trinity. Our
government adopts the maxim "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many,
one.) We preach a creed of one God, one faith, one baptism, one wife, one husband, one nation under God, indivisible, and so forth. My very deployment of the word "one" with such frequency becomes onerous to the reader, more onerous even than V-words in the movie "V for Vendetta". We even make "top ten lists" of novels and many other things, which implies that there is a NUMBER ONE at the top of the list. We speak of "the great American novel" implying that there is one, and only one. It is amusing to note that, even though we have TWO eyes and TWO ears and TWO cerebral hemispheres, yet we experience only ONE unified field of vision and hear only ONE harmonious composition and have only ONE stream of consciousness. The number one seems to have a sanctity all its own. The sanctity of unity give a new and different meaning to the one greatest prayer of Judaism, the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is ONE." Numero Uno is a God for us in many ways.
If the absurd man does not need to explain or justify his life and
behavior, why did Camus write this essay, which is, essentially, an
explanation and justification of the absurd worldview?
The irony of writing an essay to justify the absurd reminds this author of
an episode from the Simpsons, "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming," in
which the side-kick of Crusty the Clown, Sideshow Bob (voice of
Kelsey Grammer), a frustrated Shakespearean actor, seizes control of
all the television stations, in an attempt to censure and silence the
very medium which enslaves him to the absurd role which he plays.
Bob: Oh, and one more thing. I've...stolen a nuclear weapon. If
you do not rid this city of television within two hours, I will
detonate it. Farewell.
-- Bob's evil parting words, "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming"
The TV turns off. The crowd begins to panic. The TV clicks back on
again.
Bob: By the way, I'm aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to
decry it. So don't bother pointing that out.
There is irony in the use of the logical vehicle of exposition, the essay, to
justify the position of one who embraces absurdity.
There is an irony in using the very medium which one seeks to decry.
To embrace absurdity is to decry reason. To use reason to justify embracing absurdity is ironic. Perhaps the universe cannot exist without some speck of
absurdity in its foundation.
One must consider Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem which
suggests that, beyond math, any logical system (a philosophy, a
religion, etc.) must be either incomplete or contain antinomies.
The seed of chaos is the mote in the oyster's eye which the pearl
of order soothes and conceals.
Tom Wolfe blinks, perplexed, at his nacreous dawns.
I should not leave any reader behind, bewildered by my mention of Tom Wolfe.
I am quite happy with the sentence above which came to me only this morning as I wrote: The seed of chaos is the mote in the oyster's eye which the pearl of order soothes and conceals.
One of my internet friends, in Yahoo chat, asked me the source of that quote.
I explained that I made had made it up just now. I realize the idea is not new or unique. I have seen other metaphors and parables regarding oysters and pearls.
I was about to use the word "speck" or "grain" but suddenly I remembered the words of Jesus: "You attempt to remove the mote in your brother's eye, yet you have a plank in your own eye."
If you do a Google search, I did just now, you will find the following link which quotes Carl Sagan.
http://nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html
Our planet is a mote, a speck, a grain in the universe. Thanks to the King James translation, and its power over our English language, the word mote will forever connote Jesus' censure. A speck and a grain are simply small particles, morally neutral, but a mote is a moral flaw, and one which afflicts us, impairs our vision and causes us suffering, or at the very least, annoyance.
The oyster applies layer upon layer of nacre year after year upon this mote until the mote is no longer small and annoying, but large and lustrous, a thing of beauty, much sought after.
We are like Tom Sawyer and his friends with our buckets of nacre and brushes, white washing that old fence until it becomes the "pearly gates" of heaven itself. That is, we apply logic and reason and order to cover up all that ugly chaos and absurdity, and transform it into some metaphysical system, or a revealed religion, or a constitutional democracy.
When Tom Wolfe writes of a "nacreous dawn" I immediately think of Homer's frequent phrase, the formulaic "rosy-fingered dawn."
This morning, I began to think about "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert
Camus.
I turned to my trusty sparknotes and pasted a few excerpts below, with comments of my own.
Albert Camus (1913–1960) is not a philosopher so much as a novelist
with a strong philosophical bent. He is most famous for his novels of
ideas, such as The Stranger and The Plague, both of which are set in
the arid landscape of his native Algeria.
Like existentialism, phenomenology influenced Camus by its effort to
construct a worldview that does not assume that there is some sort of
rational structure to the universe that the human mind can apprehend.
Camus when he first wrote about exile, was a man, far from his home,
who was struggling against a seemingly omnipotent and senselessly
brutal regime.
The central concern of The Myth of Sisyphus is what Camus calls "the
absurd." Camus claims that there is a fundamental conflict between
what we want from the universe (whether it be meaning, order, or
reasons) and what we find in the universe (formless chaos). We will
never find in life itself the meaning that we want to find. Either we will
discover that meaning through a leap of faith, by placing our hopes in
a God beyond this world, or we will conclude that life is meaningless.
Camus opens the essay by asking if this latter conclusion that life is
meaningless necessarily leads one to commit suicide. If life has no
meaning, does that mean life is not worth living? If that were the
case, we would have no option but to make a leap of faith or to
commit suicide, says Camus. Camus is interested in pursuing a third
possibility: that we can accept and live in a world devoid of meaning
or purpose.
This author wonders if our purpose in a meaningless universe is to find
meaning in the meaninglessness, create meaning where there is no
meaning, impose meaning upon that meaninglessness. Perhaps
meaninglessness is a necessary ingredient for freedom. If there is a
pre-existing meaning and order, then that which pre-exists becomes
law for us, and law constricts our freedom.
Stop and think how even the omnipotence of God is threatened by
laws and order. There are two verses in the Bible (Titus 1:2; Hebrews
6:18) which state that "God cannot lie."
Allah of the Qu'ran, on the other hand, is more free and potent than
such an honest-Abe Jehovah, for Islam states that Allah has the power
to abrogate and overturn any and every established rule or command.
Sura 2:106 "Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be
forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that
Allah has power over all things?"
Plato presents us with the famous "Euthyphro Dilemma" which asks:
"Is what you're doing pious because it is loved by God, or does God
love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious?"
Honest-Abe-Jehovah is forbidden to lie because of the pre-existing
absolute standard of good and evil to which even God is subject. So
Jehovah loves virtue because of its intrinsic objective absolute nature
as something good. Allah on the other hand, is more powerful since
Allah is free to designate whatever Allah pleases as pious and
virtuous, and is not even bound by Allah's own judgment, but may
abrogate that judgment at any time and designate something
completely different as pious and virtuous.
Confronted by meaninglessness, we seek transcendence to rise above
and escape.
Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So
long as he accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd
struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
Camus gives four examples of the absurd life: the seducer, who
pursues the passions of the moment; the actor, who compresses the
passions of hundreds of lives into a stage career; the conqueror, or
rebel, whose political struggle focuses his energies; and the artist,
who creates entire worlds. Absurd art does not try to explain
experience, but simply describes it. It presents a certain worldview
that deals with particular matters rather than aiming for universal
themes.
Camus discusses the very meaning of existence and life itself.
This author observes that to justify absurdity is to impose a measure of
order upon it.
We can be certain of only two things: our "nostalgia for unity" and our
inability to find an answer in the world.
Think about "unity." We study the "UNI"verse in a "UNIV"ersity where
we constantly strive for a "G.U.T." (Grand Unifying Theory) Our various
religions stress "MONO"theism, or the "UNITY" of the Trinity. Our
government adopts the maxim "E Pluribus Unum" (From the many,
one.) We preach a creed of one God, one faith, one baptism, one wife, one husband, one nation under God, indivisible, and so forth. My very deployment of the word "one" with such frequency becomes onerous to the reader, more onerous even than V-words in the movie "V for Vendetta". We even make "top ten lists" of novels and many other things, which implies that there is a NUMBER ONE at the top of the list. We speak of "the great American novel" implying that there is one, and only one. It is amusing to note that, even though we have TWO eyes and TWO ears and TWO cerebral hemispheres, yet we experience only ONE unified field of vision and hear only ONE harmonious composition and have only ONE stream of consciousness. The number one seems to have a sanctity all its own. The sanctity of unity give a new and different meaning to the one greatest prayer of Judaism, the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is ONE." Numero Uno is a God for us in many ways.
If the absurd man does not need to explain or justify his life and
behavior, why did Camus write this essay, which is, essentially, an
explanation and justification of the absurd worldview?
The irony of writing an essay to justify the absurd reminds this author of
an episode from the Simpsons, "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming," in
which the side-kick of Crusty the Clown, Sideshow Bob (voice of
Kelsey Grammer), a frustrated Shakespearean actor, seizes control of
all the television stations, in an attempt to censure and silence the
very medium which enslaves him to the absurd role which he plays.
Bob: Oh, and one more thing. I've...stolen a nuclear weapon. If
you do not rid this city of television within two hours, I will
detonate it. Farewell.
-- Bob's evil parting words, "Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming"
The TV turns off. The crowd begins to panic. The TV clicks back on
again.
Bob: By the way, I'm aware of the irony of appearing on TV in order to
decry it. So don't bother pointing that out.
There is irony in the use of the logical vehicle of exposition, the essay, to
justify the position of one who embraces absurdity.
There is an irony in using the very medium which one seeks to decry.
To embrace absurdity is to decry reason. To use reason to justify embracing absurdity is ironic. Perhaps the universe cannot exist without some speck of
absurdity in its foundation.
One must consider Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem which
suggests that, beyond math, any logical system (a philosophy, a
religion, etc.) must be either incomplete or contain antinomies.
The seed of chaos is the mote in the oyster's eye which the pearl
of order soothes and conceals.
Tom Wolfe blinks, perplexed, at his nacreous dawns.
I should not leave any reader behind, bewildered by my mention of Tom Wolfe.
I am quite happy with the sentence above which came to me only this morning as I wrote: The seed of chaos is the mote in the oyster's eye which the pearl of order soothes and conceals.
One of my internet friends, in Yahoo chat, asked me the source of that quote.
I explained that I made had made it up just now. I realize the idea is not new or unique. I have seen other metaphors and parables regarding oysters and pearls.
I was about to use the word "speck" or "grain" but suddenly I remembered the words of Jesus: "You attempt to remove the mote in your brother's eye, yet you have a plank in your own eye."
If you do a Google search, I did just now, you will find the following link which quotes Carl Sagan.
http://nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html
Our planet is a mote, a speck, a grain in the universe. Thanks to the King James translation, and its power over our English language, the word mote will forever connote Jesus' censure. A speck and a grain are simply small particles, morally neutral, but a mote is a moral flaw, and one which afflicts us, impairs our vision and causes us suffering, or at the very least, annoyance.
The oyster applies layer upon layer of nacre year after year upon this mote until the mote is no longer small and annoying, but large and lustrous, a thing of beauty, much sought after.
We are like Tom Sawyer and his friends with our buckets of nacre and brushes, white washing that old fence until it becomes the "pearly gates" of heaven itself. That is, we apply logic and reason and order to cover up all that ugly chaos and absurdity, and transform it into some metaphysical system, or a revealed religion, or a constitutional democracy.
When Tom Wolfe writes of a "nacreous dawn" I immediately think of Homer's frequent phrase, the formulaic "rosy-fingered dawn."
20 years experience, or the same year 20 times?
McCain claims 20 years deep experience in foreign affairs, but, if it is true that USA is in the sheeet-hole for the past 20 years, then how much does that recommend McCain, if he played some role in that bowel-movement that we call U.S. foreign policy?
Sometimes "20 years experience" means the same year TWENTY TIMES!
Bryan: I think of how the U.S. is in a bad spot can only be negative for McCain, who has had greater influence and for a longer duration than Obama
Me: McCain seemed more catty (snide, snotty) and would not make eye contact (mom thinks, to control his hair trigger temper). Snottiness is an important trait in a president or prime minister.
Obama seemed more sincere in his attempt at congenial tolerance.
I think being an African American (that N word is so ugly) gives one much practice in equanimity, patience, tolerance.
Oldbearded1 on Myspace:
Your question implies that he would have sole responsibility for the past twenty years of foreign affairs, rather than just "some-role". That's quite a leap!
Me:
Massive Leap!? GoodGodAllMighty!! If I were one of a 1000 engineers who worked on the Titanic, I would not feel responsible, but neither would I feature it on my resume. Perhaps these are times when "years of experience" are not the best thing or what is needed. Perhaps we need someone who is not quite so deeply entangled in the massively corrupt machine of politics.
I am reminded of that 1988 film "Big", where Tom Hanks is a boy who magically becomes an adult.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Big
That boy-man becomes a roaring success in the toy industry PRECISELY because he has no experience, and is not jaded by years of "thinking inside the box."
Quite frankly, I feel that no one person will make a positive difference. I see inevitable doom as the handwriting on the wall. One person (like another crack-pot Bush), COULD, in theory, make things far worse far more quickly, but no single person is going to turn around and change the dynamics of environment, economy, and politics which have been at work for the past century or two. Frankly, Palin and McCain seem to me like such goody-two-shoes self-righteous clowns, standing upon their high moral ground of Protestant piety and American chauvinism.
Au contrere, mon frere, I see YOUR conclusion regarding MY conclusion as a massive leap.
I see our society and culture as rotten-to-the-core, but I have no better
alternative to offer, and I don't have that much longer to live either, relatively speaking. I do care, or I would not take the time to write all this down. But there is not much I can do to change things. Even if everyone in the world tomorrow, read my blog and agreed with me, I don't think it would change things.
If I hear McCain harp on his prisoner-of-war-hero-status one more time, I think I shall become violently ill. Just imagine, for a moment, that various Asian nations came to world power and held Nuremberg type trials judging the criminal actions of the Viet Nam war. Then, what would McCain do? Would he plead that he was "simply following orders?" Remind you of anything? Oh, abortion and pro-choice are a terrible thing? Killing fetuses is a terrible thing? I wonder how many fetuses McCain killed in Hanoi when he dropped those bombs? How many men has Obama killed, I wonder? I am guessing zero? OK, Barack, fess up! How many people have you killed?
You mean, we cannot have a decent leader unless he was a general like Eisenhower, or a u-boat commander like Kennedy, or a prisoner-of-war, like McCain? If that is true, then if the day ever comes that we achieve world peace, that will be the day that we run out of qualified leaders!
When the senators of ancient Rome campaigned for office, they would stand in the market-place, open their togas, and show their battle scars to the public, to prove their valor in combat, and their patriotism. I suppose, if we take seriously Gibbon's life work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", then it was when the citizen warriors were replaced by paid mercenary troops that the empire of 1000 years was doomed to fall to the hairy, unwashed, tribal barbarians.
Did you ever stop to think how warped and twisted and distorted American cultural values have been for the past two centuries? It is only about 150 years ago that people of color were property, possessions, and the Bible was used to justify that (Paul's Epistle to Philemon, advising a slave to be content with his lot, and Moses Torah mitzvahs regarding the treatment of slaves). It is only about 90 years ago that women could not vote. In 18th century Connecticut, one could not vote unless one was a member of a certain church denomination (Presbyterian, Congregational, I forget).
Can you tell me the eye color of all the U.S. presidents since George Washington?
Stupid question, right? Eye color makes about as much difference as skin color.
Now we could not have Lieberman as president, because, God forbid, Lieberman is not a Protestant Christian. And it is unthinkable to have a Mormon as president. And Obama is not a good choice, because he happened to go to a church where the pastor hollered about how rotten whites are. Well, I am white, and I too think that whites are rotten. So where should you holler about things that irk you if not in your church. Jews get together an holler every year about the pharaoh of Egypt saying "less straw, more bricks". That's why we call those religious observations "Holler Days". Oh, but that's some 2500 years ago, you say? Time to forgive and forget, you say?
I think that Nixon had Quaker roots! I must Google to be certain. But how on earth did a Quaker sneak into the White House?
http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Richard_Nixon.html
People think it is terrible that Obama attended the church of Rev. Wright. OK, but here is how I see it. Pres. Bush is a born-again Christian, giving up 20 years of alcoholism, because of his walk on the beach with Billy Graham. And like every other president of modern times, Bush felt compelled to tell the voting public that he has accepted Jesus as his "personal savior". Well, now, what should it mean in "theory" to have a commander-in-chief who takes Jesus as his guide. Didn't Jesus advise, not merely to forgive your enemy, but to LOVE your enemy. So, when the World Trade Center was toppled, where was all our Christian charity and forgiveness and love. I should imagine that anyone who takes Jesus as his guide and model would not only be a pacifist, but, would actually avoid any form of government involvement. Did Jesus run for mayor of Jerusalem? NO, Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "my kingdom is not of this world." And who was it who said "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword?" (I honestly don't remember and I get tired of Googling for things. Go and Google it yourself if you are curious.)
So, you didn't care for Giuliani as a candidate, because his first wife and kids don't like him? If you wanted someone to run an efficient corporation, would you expect him to be the "husband of one wife"? You don't think a mean nasty S.O.B. could be a successful C.E.O? How about a good general? You don't think a mean ruthless S.O.B. could be a great general. Myth number 1, the Protestant reformation stresses salvation by forgiveness, and discourages the veneration of Saints. But, where is all the forgiveness when someone topples the Twin Towers? Where is all the forgiveness when Bill Clinton is tempted by his sexual passions. When we vet a political candidate, we dig all the way back to high school and beyond, to assure ourselves that our candidate is saintly and sinless.
If we keep electing war heroes, do you think we will have a shot at world peace. Suppose McCain had been so taken with the teaching of Jesus that he had moved to Canada to avoid killing people with bombs? Oh, but then he would have been unpatriotic! A traitor!
By the way, do you happen to know the very first nation in modern times to have a woman as prime minister? It was Sri Lanka (former Ceylon). She was the wife of the Buddhist prime minister, and he was assassinated by a Buddhist extremist. So, of course, the country wanted his WIFE to serve out the term of office. Well, so much for the progressive nature of 20th century nations.
The way I see it, the First Lady was not active or important until Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, it seems that the spouse is an important part of the Presidency.
Sometimes "20 years experience" means the same year TWENTY TIMES!
Bryan: I think of how the U.S. is in a bad spot can only be negative for McCain, who has had greater influence and for a longer duration than Obama
Me: McCain seemed more catty (snide, snotty) and would not make eye contact (mom thinks, to control his hair trigger temper). Snottiness is an important trait in a president or prime minister.
Obama seemed more sincere in his attempt at congenial tolerance.
I think being an African American (that N word is so ugly) gives one much practice in equanimity, patience, tolerance.
Oldbearded1 on Myspace:
Your question implies that he would have sole responsibility for the past twenty years of foreign affairs, rather than just "some-role". That's quite a leap!
Me:
Massive Leap!? GoodGodAllMighty!! If I were one of a 1000 engineers who worked on the Titanic, I would not feel responsible, but neither would I feature it on my resume. Perhaps these are times when "years of experience" are not the best thing or what is needed. Perhaps we need someone who is not quite so deeply entangled in the massively corrupt machine of politics.
I am reminded of that 1988 film "Big", where Tom Hanks is a boy who magically becomes an adult.
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Big
That boy-man becomes a roaring success in the toy industry PRECISELY because he has no experience, and is not jaded by years of "thinking inside the box."
Quite frankly, I feel that no one person will make a positive difference. I see inevitable doom as the handwriting on the wall. One person (like another crack-pot Bush), COULD, in theory, make things far worse far more quickly, but no single person is going to turn around and change the dynamics of environment, economy, and politics which have been at work for the past century or two. Frankly, Palin and McCain seem to me like such goody-two-shoes self-righteous clowns, standing upon their high moral ground of Protestant piety and American chauvinism.
Au contrere, mon frere, I see YOUR conclusion regarding MY conclusion as a massive leap.
I see our society and culture as rotten-to-the-core, but I have no better
alternative to offer, and I don't have that much longer to live either, relatively speaking. I do care, or I would not take the time to write all this down. But there is not much I can do to change things. Even if everyone in the world tomorrow, read my blog and agreed with me, I don't think it would change things.
If I hear McCain harp on his prisoner-of-war-hero-status one more time, I think I shall become violently ill. Just imagine, for a moment, that various Asian nations came to world power and held Nuremberg type trials judging the criminal actions of the Viet Nam war. Then, what would McCain do? Would he plead that he was "simply following orders?" Remind you of anything? Oh, abortion and pro-choice are a terrible thing? Killing fetuses is a terrible thing? I wonder how many fetuses McCain killed in Hanoi when he dropped those bombs? How many men has Obama killed, I wonder? I am guessing zero? OK, Barack, fess up! How many people have you killed?
You mean, we cannot have a decent leader unless he was a general like Eisenhower, or a u-boat commander like Kennedy, or a prisoner-of-war, like McCain? If that is true, then if the day ever comes that we achieve world peace, that will be the day that we run out of qualified leaders!
When the senators of ancient Rome campaigned for office, they would stand in the market-place, open their togas, and show their battle scars to the public, to prove their valor in combat, and their patriotism. I suppose, if we take seriously Gibbon's life work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", then it was when the citizen warriors were replaced by paid mercenary troops that the empire of 1000 years was doomed to fall to the hairy, unwashed, tribal barbarians.
Did you ever stop to think how warped and twisted and distorted American cultural values have been for the past two centuries? It is only about 150 years ago that people of color were property, possessions, and the Bible was used to justify that (Paul's Epistle to Philemon, advising a slave to be content with his lot, and Moses Torah mitzvahs regarding the treatment of slaves). It is only about 90 years ago that women could not vote. In 18th century Connecticut, one could not vote unless one was a member of a certain church denomination (Presbyterian, Congregational, I forget).
Can you tell me the eye color of all the U.S. presidents since George Washington?
Stupid question, right? Eye color makes about as much difference as skin color.
Now we could not have Lieberman as president, because, God forbid, Lieberman is not a Protestant Christian. And it is unthinkable to have a Mormon as president. And Obama is not a good choice, because he happened to go to a church where the pastor hollered about how rotten whites are. Well, I am white, and I too think that whites are rotten. So where should you holler about things that irk you if not in your church. Jews get together an holler every year about the pharaoh of Egypt saying "less straw, more bricks". That's why we call those religious observations "Holler Days". Oh, but that's some 2500 years ago, you say? Time to forgive and forget, you say?
I think that Nixon had Quaker roots! I must Google to be certain. But how on earth did a Quaker sneak into the White House?
http://www.adherents.com/people/pn/Richard_Nixon.html
People think it is terrible that Obama attended the church of Rev. Wright. OK, but here is how I see it. Pres. Bush is a born-again Christian, giving up 20 years of alcoholism, because of his walk on the beach with Billy Graham. And like every other president of modern times, Bush felt compelled to tell the voting public that he has accepted Jesus as his "personal savior". Well, now, what should it mean in "theory" to have a commander-in-chief who takes Jesus as his guide. Didn't Jesus advise, not merely to forgive your enemy, but to LOVE your enemy. So, when the World Trade Center was toppled, where was all our Christian charity and forgiveness and love. I should imagine that anyone who takes Jesus as his guide and model would not only be a pacifist, but, would actually avoid any form of government involvement. Did Jesus run for mayor of Jerusalem? NO, Jesus said, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" and "my kingdom is not of this world." And who was it who said "those who live by the sword shall die by the sword?" (I honestly don't remember and I get tired of Googling for things. Go and Google it yourself if you are curious.)
So, you didn't care for Giuliani as a candidate, because his first wife and kids don't like him? If you wanted someone to run an efficient corporation, would you expect him to be the "husband of one wife"? You don't think a mean nasty S.O.B. could be a successful C.E.O? How about a good general? You don't think a mean ruthless S.O.B. could be a great general. Myth number 1, the Protestant reformation stresses salvation by forgiveness, and discourages the veneration of Saints. But, where is all the forgiveness when someone topples the Twin Towers? Where is all the forgiveness when Bill Clinton is tempted by his sexual passions. When we vet a political candidate, we dig all the way back to high school and beyond, to assure ourselves that our candidate is saintly and sinless.
If we keep electing war heroes, do you think we will have a shot at world peace. Suppose McCain had been so taken with the teaching of Jesus that he had moved to Canada to avoid killing people with bombs? Oh, but then he would have been unpatriotic! A traitor!
By the way, do you happen to know the very first nation in modern times to have a woman as prime minister? It was Sri Lanka (former Ceylon). She was the wife of the Buddhist prime minister, and he was assassinated by a Buddhist extremist. So, of course, the country wanted his WIFE to serve out the term of office. Well, so much for the progressive nature of 20th century nations.
The way I see it, the First Lady was not active or important until Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, it seems that the spouse is an important part of the Presidency.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Mr. Tolbert and the PERspective Students
Mr. Tolbert was Director of Admissions at St. John's in 1967, when I applied. He was fastidious about spelling and grammar. He once exclaimed "they are PROSpective students, and not PERspective students, since they are real, solid, three-dimensional" (a perspective denotes an angle or vantage point).
I was a terrible speller, and those were the days before spell-checkers, which cover a multitude of sins. I had to write a long essay stating why I should be accepted as a student at St. John's. I had some occasion which escapes my memory now to use the word "laundry", but I mispelled it as "laundary". Mr. Tolbert soundly rebuked me. For the rest of my life, whenever I write the word "laundry" I remember that moment.
Mr. Tolbers parting words of advice, after my interview, were "We, at St. John's are GRAMMARIANS." He told me to purchase a copy of House and Harman's "Descriptive English Grammar", which was a 400 page hard cover book. That summer, I read ALL 400 pages, and diagrammed each and every exercise sentence. I came away from that experience which a much better understanding of grammar, which prepared me for the study of ancient Greek.
Today, I thought about entitling one post "Inhibiting Excellence", which of course is a trick title, since one assumes that the topic will involve something which hinders excelling. But what I mean by that title is that "Excellence" itself can be a hindrance, when our desire for excellence and perfection intimidates us, and holds us back from simply brainstorming, and getting it all down on paper, on 176 index cards, spread all across the floor.
I want to be able to just let go sometimes, and say whats on my mind, and not worry about style, or punctuation. I want to reminisce at this blog unhesitatingly. Yet, still, I pause to choose my words with some .
The Summer Before Leaving for College
Of course, I had to read through House and Harmon's Grammer that summer, but I also forced myself to read something else rather unusual.
My high school Sophomore English teacher, David Baumgarner, suggested that I read Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandrian Quartet: Justine, Balthazar, Mountolive and Clea." The novels were set in Alexandria Egypt in the 1920s. One scene branded itself in my memory. A group of Egyptian businessmen hired a blind muzzein to come and recite passages from the Qur'an. They wept for the beauty of the words. I decided that I must learn something about this curious Qur'an. I purchased Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall's "Meaning of the Glorious Koran" (Penguin Paperback, $1.25). I still have the copy I read on my bookshelf.
I found the Qur'an a bit boring and repetitive, but I resolved to read each and every page. I underlined any sentence which seems to merit further attention. I looked up every unfamiliar word in the dictionary, and wrote the definition on the margin of the page.
I was a terrible speller, and those were the days before spell-checkers, which cover a multitude of sins. I had to write a long essay stating why I should be accepted as a student at St. John's. I had some occasion which escapes my memory now to use the word "laundry", but I mispelled it as "laundary". Mr. Tolbert soundly rebuked me. For the rest of my life, whenever I write the word "laundry" I remember that moment.
Mr. Tolbers parting words of advice, after my interview, were "We, at St. John's are GRAMMARIANS." He told me to purchase a copy of House and Harman's "Descriptive English Grammar", which was a 400 page hard cover book. That summer, I read ALL 400 pages, and diagrammed each and every exercise sentence. I came away from that experience which a much better understanding of grammar, which prepared me for the study of ancient Greek.
Today, I thought about entitling one post "Inhibiting Excellence", which of course is a trick title, since one assumes that the topic will involve something which hinders excelling. But what I mean by that title is that "Excellence" itself can be a hindrance, when our desire for excellence and perfection intimidates us, and holds us back from simply brainstorming, and getting it all down on paper, on 176 index cards, spread all across the floor.
I want to be able to just let go sometimes, and say whats on my mind, and not worry about style, or punctuation. I want to reminisce at this blog unhesitatingly. Yet, still, I pause to choose my words with some .
The Summer Before Leaving for College
Of course, I had to read through House and Harmon's Grammer that summer, but I also forced myself to read something else rather unusual.
My high school Sophomore English teacher, David Baumgarner, suggested that I read Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandrian Quartet: Justine, Balthazar, Mountolive and Clea." The novels were set in Alexandria Egypt in the 1920s. One scene branded itself in my memory. A group of Egyptian businessmen hired a blind muzzein to come and recite passages from the Qur'an. They wept for the beauty of the words. I decided that I must learn something about this curious Qur'an. I purchased Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall's "Meaning of the Glorious Koran" (Penguin Paperback, $1.25). I still have the copy I read on my bookshelf.
I found the Qur'an a bit boring and repetitive, but I resolved to read each and every page. I underlined any sentence which seems to merit further attention. I looked up every unfamiliar word in the dictionary, and wrote the definition on the margin of the page.
Elliott Zuckerman's Sermon
Elliott Zuckerman is a Tutor (Professor) at St. John's. I was in his music tutorial during my Sophomore year.
One day, in the Spring, at the end of a class, he gave us a 3 minute "sermon" about continuing the life of the mind after graduation. He said we should continue to read and study throughout life. His words stuck with me. As I went through life, these 30 years, I would occasionally see him in my minds eye, and hear again what he said.
One day, in the Spring, at the end of a class, he gave us a 3 minute "sermon" about continuing the life of the mind after graduation. He said we should continue to read and study throughout life. His words stuck with me. As I went through life, these 30 years, I would occasionally see him in my minds eye, and hear again what he said.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Les Margulis
I am so glad to be in touch with Les Margulis again.
I vividly remember my first conversation with him, during breakfast, when I was a Freshman and Les was a Sophomore. Les was reading a Spanish newspaper, and explained to me that he had taught himself Spanish, and wanted to keep up with his language skills. I was so impressed. At that time I could speak only English. After graduating, I taught myself to "get by" in Greek and Russian, just so that I could have the experience of being poly-lingual.
Les told me how Charlie Mauer had contacted him, the Summer before his Freshman year, to try and sell him a set of Great Books. I Charlie Mauer was quit an entrepreneur.
I felt badly when Les was not enabled, at the end of his Sophomore year. I thought he was rather gifted. But then, who knows what sorts of decision-making went on behind the scenes in those days. I do remember how Robert Fenton Gary bugged the meeting rooms of the enabling committee, and tape recorded what the faculty said about each student. (That was a year or two after Les left).
I also remember sitting at a dining room table with Les, and Marie Hays was sitting across the table. Marie, for some reason, jokingly pursed her lips (not at either Les or myself), and Les exclaimed how attractive she looked (which was exactly my opinion as I witnessed that spontaneous pucker).
I have an unusual ability to photographically recall such random conversations and moments. I did not realize until a few years ago that this is an unusual ability. I simply assumed that everyone had the same sort of memory. Oh, it does not help me to study for an exam. I am very poor when it comes to such thing. But I have this kind of library of video recordings in my head, of so many conversations, that extends back to the age of 4.
I do forget certain things. I called David Gilmore some years ago, to say hello. He reminded me how, on 4th floor Chase Stone, I would come out in the hall occasionally, and play "O Susanna" on an old Honer Harmonica that I had as a child, to make people laugh. I had TOTALLY forgotten that, but as soon as David mentioned it, I instantly recalled the event.
I find blogging, journaling and reminiscing rather relaxing and theraputic. Anyway, I wonder if Les will read this and remember...
I wonder if Les has kept up with his Spanish?
Spanish was the first foreign language I ever tried to study in 7th grade. I remember trying to memorize how to count, zero uno dos tres quattro cinco ses ciete ocho nueve diez (I still remember). I was riding my bike, and reciting.... but suddenly, it dawned upon me that to actually become fluent, I would have to memorize literally thousands of words. That seemed to me an utterly impossible feat. I was in a state of shock.
I vividly remember my first conversation with him, during breakfast, when I was a Freshman and Les was a Sophomore. Les was reading a Spanish newspaper, and explained to me that he had taught himself Spanish, and wanted to keep up with his language skills. I was so impressed. At that time I could speak only English. After graduating, I taught myself to "get by" in Greek and Russian, just so that I could have the experience of being poly-lingual.
Les told me how Charlie Mauer had contacted him, the Summer before his Freshman year, to try and sell him a set of Great Books. I Charlie Mauer was quit an entrepreneur.
I felt badly when Les was not enabled, at the end of his Sophomore year. I thought he was rather gifted. But then, who knows what sorts of decision-making went on behind the scenes in those days. I do remember how Robert Fenton Gary bugged the meeting rooms of the enabling committee, and tape recorded what the faculty said about each student. (That was a year or two after Les left).
I also remember sitting at a dining room table with Les, and Marie Hays was sitting across the table. Marie, for some reason, jokingly pursed her lips (not at either Les or myself), and Les exclaimed how attractive she looked (which was exactly my opinion as I witnessed that spontaneous pucker).
I have an unusual ability to photographically recall such random conversations and moments. I did not realize until a few years ago that this is an unusual ability. I simply assumed that everyone had the same sort of memory. Oh, it does not help me to study for an exam. I am very poor when it comes to such thing. But I have this kind of library of video recordings in my head, of so many conversations, that extends back to the age of 4.
I do forget certain things. I called David Gilmore some years ago, to say hello. He reminded me how, on 4th floor Chase Stone, I would come out in the hall occasionally, and play "O Susanna" on an old Honer Harmonica that I had as a child, to make people laugh. I had TOTALLY forgotten that, but as soon as David mentioned it, I instantly recalled the event.
I find blogging, journaling and reminiscing rather relaxing and theraputic. Anyway, I wonder if Les will read this and remember...
I wonder if Les has kept up with his Spanish?
Spanish was the first foreign language I ever tried to study in 7th grade. I remember trying to memorize how to count, zero uno dos tres quattro cinco ses ciete ocho nueve diez (I still remember). I was riding my bike, and reciting.... but suddenly, it dawned upon me that to actually become fluent, I would have to memorize literally thousands of words. That seemed to me an utterly impossible feat. I was in a state of shock.
I just joined Facebook
So, I figure I might as well create this
http://greatbooksprogram.blogspot.com
So that I have a place to blog.
Facebook does not seem to have a native blog ability, but rather allows one to post any sort of link, including the link to a blog post.
I guess my greatest interest in my life has revolved around my four year experience at St. John's Annapolis, MD, 1967-1971, reading the "hundred great books".
So, I shall post this, and see what happens...
http://greatbooksprogram.blogspot.com
So that I have a place to blog.
Facebook does not seem to have a native blog ability, but rather allows one to post any sort of link, including the link to a blog post.
I guess my greatest interest in my life has revolved around my four year experience at St. John's Annapolis, MD, 1967-1971, reading the "hundred great books".
So, I shall post this, and see what happens...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)