2011-06-28
Five Blind Men and the Elephant
A Table of Values hangs above every people - it makes them who and what they are...
Our problem (those of us who live in modern society under the yoke of the Corporate Capitalist System) is that instead of a Table of Values we have a big TV screen that is constantly blarring commercial messages at us 24/7. The film "They Live" nicely sums it up. But, then again, the "Matrix Trilogy" gives us a glimpse of the idea that our sole purpose in a Consumer Society is to be just another "Flashlight Battery" for the powers-that-be...
Are these conflicting perceptions? Consider the following folk tale:
The Blind Men and the Elephant (retold by Robin Wood 1999)
Once upon a time, five blind men came upon an elephant.
"What is this?!" asked the first one, who had run headlong into its side.
"It's an Elephant." said the elephant's keeper, who was sitting on a stool, cleaning the elephant's harness.
"Wow! So this is an Elephant! I've always wondered what Elephants are like!" said the man, running his hands as far as he could reach up and down the elephant's side. "Why, it's just like a wall! A large, warm wall!"
"What do you mean, a wall?" said the second man, wrapping his arms around the elephant's leg. "This is nothing like a wall. You can't reach around a wall! This is more like a pillar. Yeah, that's it! An Elephant is exactly like a pillar!"
"A pillar? Strange kind of pillar!" said the third man, stroking the elephant's trunk. "It's too thin, for one thing, and it's too flexible for another. If you think this is a pillar, I don't want to go to your house! This is more like a snake. See, it's wrapping around my arm! An Elephant is just like a snake!"
"Snakes don't have hair!" said the fourth man in disgust, pulling the elephant's tail. "You are closer than the others, but I'm surprised that you missed the hair. This isn't a snake, it's a rope. Elephants are exactly like ropes."
"I don't know what you guys are on!" the fifth man cried, waving the elephant's ear back and forth. "It's as large as a wall, all right, but thin as a leaf, and no more flexible than any piece of cloth this size should be. I don't know what's wrong with all of you, but no one except a complete idiot could mistake an Elephant for anything except a sail!!!"
And as the elephant stepped aside, they tramped off down the road, arguing more loudly and violently as they went, each sure that he, and he alone, was right; and all the others were wrong.
The Elephant keeper sighed, and went back to polishing the harness, while the elephant winked solemnly at him.
---
We are like the blind men, each only having a small piece of the puzzle, each right but also wrong. The problem is focus and coordination. We need to focus on our own needs, and to coordinate our efforts in order to achieve them. Theorizing about the "Nature of the Enemy" is all well and good as a hobby for those who have little or nothing on their minds. But, we have needs that must be met. And, in order to meet them we need to prioritize and set goals that are achievable.
The Prime Directive is SURVIVAL!
Our problem (those of us who live in modern society under the yoke of the Corporate Capitalist System) is that instead of a Table of Values we have a big TV screen that is constantly blarring commercial messages at us 24/7. The film "They Live" nicely sums it up. But, then again, the "Matrix Trilogy" gives us a glimpse of the idea that our sole purpose in a Consumer Society is to be just another "Flashlight Battery" for the powers-that-be...
Are these conflicting perceptions? Consider the following folk tale:
The Blind Men and the Elephant (retold by Robin Wood 1999)
Once upon a time, five blind men came upon an elephant.
"What is this?!" asked the first one, who had run headlong into its side.
"It's an Elephant." said the elephant's keeper, who was sitting on a stool, cleaning the elephant's harness.
"Wow! So this is an Elephant! I've always wondered what Elephants are like!" said the man, running his hands as far as he could reach up and down the elephant's side. "Why, it's just like a wall! A large, warm wall!"
"What do you mean, a wall?" said the second man, wrapping his arms around the elephant's leg. "This is nothing like a wall. You can't reach around a wall! This is more like a pillar. Yeah, that's it! An Elephant is exactly like a pillar!"
"A pillar? Strange kind of pillar!" said the third man, stroking the elephant's trunk. "It's too thin, for one thing, and it's too flexible for another. If you think this is a pillar, I don't want to go to your house! This is more like a snake. See, it's wrapping around my arm! An Elephant is just like a snake!"
"Snakes don't have hair!" said the fourth man in disgust, pulling the elephant's tail. "You are closer than the others, but I'm surprised that you missed the hair. This isn't a snake, it's a rope. Elephants are exactly like ropes."
"I don't know what you guys are on!" the fifth man cried, waving the elephant's ear back and forth. "It's as large as a wall, all right, but thin as a leaf, and no more flexible than any piece of cloth this size should be. I don't know what's wrong with all of you, but no one except a complete idiot could mistake an Elephant for anything except a sail!!!"
And as the elephant stepped aside, they tramped off down the road, arguing more loudly and violently as they went, each sure that he, and he alone, was right; and all the others were wrong.
The Elephant keeper sighed, and went back to polishing the harness, while the elephant winked solemnly at him.
---
We are like the blind men, each only having a small piece of the puzzle, each right but also wrong. The problem is focus and coordination. We need to focus on our own needs, and to coordinate our efforts in order to achieve them. Theorizing about the "Nature of the Enemy" is all well and good as a hobby for those who have little or nothing on their minds. But, we have needs that must be met. And, in order to meet them we need to prioritize and set goals that are achievable.
The Prime Directive is SURVIVAL!
2011-06-20
Economic Alternatives
“The era of American global leadership, reaching back to the Second World War, is over… The American free-market creed has self-destructed while countries that retained overall control of markets have been vindicated.” - John Gray, London School of Economics
The global financial crisis (you know the one that doesn't exist), brewing for a while, really started to show its effects in the middle of 2007 and into 2008. Around the world stock markets have fallen, large financial institutions have collapsed or been bought out, and governments in even the wealthiest nations have had to come up with rescue packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned that those responsible for the financial problems are the ones being bailed out, while on the other hand, a global financial meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost everyone in an increasingly inter-connected world. The problem could have been avoided, if ideologues supporting the current economics models weren’t so vocal, influential and inconsiderate of others’ viewpoints and concerns. (Chicago School of Economics, now that sounds like a Pollock operation.)
There is a recognition among the public and some politicians that today’s economic crisis is a failure of free market thinking, and not a warrant for more. In response to popular outcry, politicians around the world seem ready to discuss how to regulate and restrain the market. The question is, can they, and, if they can, in whose interests will this regulation work?
What is hoped is that fruitful debate will increase in the mainstream.
This will also attract ideologues of different shades, leading to both wider discussion but also more entrenched views. Those with power and money are less likely to agree to a radical change in economics where their power and influence are going to diminish, and will be able to lobby governments, produce compelling ads and do whatever it takes to maintain options that ensure they benefit.
In times of crisis, the myth becomes far easier to see through. After all, the failure of the banks could have spiraled into total economic meltdown were the public sector not there to catch it. Capitalism can no more bail itself out than it can stand on its own shoulders. The market has always depended on society, which is why the language of “too big to fail” simply means “so big that it can depend on society to pick it up when it topples.” The logic of laissez-faire always needs a social base.
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
Maybe it is time to take a closer look at Technocracy?
Technocracy
Technocracy Movement
The global financial crisis (you know the one that doesn't exist), brewing for a while, really started to show its effects in the middle of 2007 and into 2008. Around the world stock markets have fallen, large financial institutions have collapsed or been bought out, and governments in even the wealthiest nations have had to come up with rescue packages to bail out their financial systems.
On the one hand many people are concerned that those responsible for the financial problems are the ones being bailed out, while on the other hand, a global financial meltdown will affect the livelihoods of almost everyone in an increasingly inter-connected world. The problem could have been avoided, if ideologues supporting the current economics models weren’t so vocal, influential and inconsiderate of others’ viewpoints and concerns. (Chicago School of Economics, now that sounds like a Pollock operation.)
There is a recognition among the public and some politicians that today’s economic crisis is a failure of free market thinking, and not a warrant for more. In response to popular outcry, politicians around the world seem ready to discuss how to regulate and restrain the market. The question is, can they, and, if they can, in whose interests will this regulation work?
What is hoped is that fruitful debate will increase in the mainstream.
This will also attract ideologues of different shades, leading to both wider discussion but also more entrenched views. Those with power and money are less likely to agree to a radical change in economics where their power and influence are going to diminish, and will be able to lobby governments, produce compelling ads and do whatever it takes to maintain options that ensure they benefit.
In times of crisis, the myth becomes far easier to see through. After all, the failure of the banks could have spiraled into total economic meltdown were the public sector not there to catch it. Capitalism can no more bail itself out than it can stand on its own shoulders. The market has always depended on society, which is why the language of “too big to fail” simply means “so big that it can depend on society to pick it up when it topples.” The logic of laissez-faire always needs a social base.
Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
Maybe it is time to take a closer look at Technocracy?
Technocracy
Technocracy Movement
2011-06-18
It Is Coming
No one can escape their fate. They can only meet it according to who and what they are. The ultimate fallacy is the idea of "free will". It simply does not exist. Everything is pre-ordained. The Marxists say that Capitalism made a deal with the devil. There, I suppose, was where the idea that the Nazis had links to dark, Satanic forces originated. But in their zeal to impeach National Socialism the Internationalists forgot that there is no good and evil, no Satan and no God, only men who are limited by their intelligence and their will. If there was a "side" that served the forces of evil it would have to be the "Allies" (or, as they are called today, the United Nations). Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt - now there is an "axis of evil" if there ever was one...
Beware of those who preach the doctrine of free will while trying to control the minds of men. They will tell you that black is white and woe to those who do not believe it. They shall burn for an eternity in Hell. Only Hell is a state-of-mind. As "The Kingdom of Heaven is within". Close your mind to this ignorant dogma and you will be immune to Hell's Fire. Would that men could be vaccinated against stupidity. Or better still, against egotism.
Here we have men who "know what's best for us". They are trying to "save us from ourselves". Their plan is to amass wealth and power - without limit - so that they can be insulated from the riff-raff. (That would be you and me.) But it all boils down to the same old tired bullshit: the Status Quo (a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.) To maintain the status quo is to keep things the way they presently are.
The problem with this idea is we can't keep things the way they are. Mainly, because they aren't going very well at all. I'm sure the wealthy and powerful could do without all the downtrodden masses. I'm also sure the downtrodden masses could do very well without them as well. The bottom-line is who has the real power in the world, and how can they maintain wealth and power without profits; and, if they could, what would wealth and power matter?
Would the minions of the rich and powerful stand for the murder of billions of human beings. And, what would these billions of men be doing while a tiny minority tried to murder them? Do you think they'd stand back and watch, or do you think they'd take it personally?
No, ladies and gentlemen, all of this is out of our hands. What it is really about is "historic forces"... a pre-ordained drama being played out beyond anyone's control... a series of unfortunate events. If you believed differently you would take more of an interest in unfolding situations. We have reached the place where we suck in our breath and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe someone is in control somewhere.
What if there really was a God?
Beware of those who preach the doctrine of free will while trying to control the minds of men. They will tell you that black is white and woe to those who do not believe it. They shall burn for an eternity in Hell. Only Hell is a state-of-mind. As "The Kingdom of Heaven is within". Close your mind to this ignorant dogma and you will be immune to Hell's Fire. Would that men could be vaccinated against stupidity. Or better still, against egotism.
Here we have men who "know what's best for us". They are trying to "save us from ourselves". Their plan is to amass wealth and power - without limit - so that they can be insulated from the riff-raff. (That would be you and me.) But it all boils down to the same old tired bullshit: the Status Quo (a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs.) To maintain the status quo is to keep things the way they presently are.
The problem with this idea is we can't keep things the way they are. Mainly, because they aren't going very well at all. I'm sure the wealthy and powerful could do without all the downtrodden masses. I'm also sure the downtrodden masses could do very well without them as well. The bottom-line is who has the real power in the world, and how can they maintain wealth and power without profits; and, if they could, what would wealth and power matter?
Would the minions of the rich and powerful stand for the murder of billions of human beings. And, what would these billions of men be doing while a tiny minority tried to murder them? Do you think they'd stand back and watch, or do you think they'd take it personally?
No, ladies and gentlemen, all of this is out of our hands. What it is really about is "historic forces"... a pre-ordained drama being played out beyond anyone's control... a series of unfortunate events. If you believed differently you would take more of an interest in unfolding situations. We have reached the place where we suck in our breath and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe someone is in control somewhere.
What if there really was a God?
2011-06-16
Conspiracy Theories
We must steer clear of the trap of Conspiracy Theories because, quite frankly, they distract us from the real Spiritual Struggle.
Our goal is Perfection (perfekthet). EsLi is perfect. The Enemy (EsGa'uYal) is imperfect (skadhet). EsGa'u - The evil one; the Deceiver; the Darkness; is the Enemy. There can be no compromise. We must oppose EsGa'u without reservation. The road to perfection is strewn with the corpses of the imperfect. There is no other way. Nor will we engage in the game of semantics. We have our own words. There is only "us" and "them". All that is not part of Thulien Zo'ra is NaZora.
Thulien Zo'ra is collective conciousness. Collective consciousness was a term coined by the French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) to refer to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society. It has also developed as a way of describing how an entire community comes together to share similar values. This can also be termed "hive mind". Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the founder of the Transcendental Meditation program, used the term to describe how the combined coherence in consciousness of a group of people could have an influence on the rest of society.
In order to be effective spiritual purity must be achieved. EsLi is the "norm" to which all Enhetar must subscribe. Deviation from spiritual purity cannot be allowed. Thulien Zo'ra is a community of Enhetar who are of "One Mind".
2011-06-14
The Misconception
Man is a bridge in the now between the past and the future. A rope stretched across the Abyss. He is a bridge because he has no other choice. He either evolves and gives birth to the next human evolution, or he stagnates and perishes. The verdict is not in yet. The Enemy is the forces of Darkness, the forces of Death. The Enemy wants humanity to perish in the Abyss rather than cross over the bridge. Because there is no place in the Future for the Enemy. Sadly, or gloriously (whichever way you look at it) present humanity must also perish. For when the New Man comes present humanity will be obsolete.
Present humanity can be a bridge to the future, but it is not the next evolution of humanity. The Over-man. That one is yet to come. For the present we all have a choice between being sad or glorious. We can choose to be the bridge to a higher evolution, or we can choose to impede its progress. If we choose to hinder the New Man from coming into being we are already obsolete. And, we have no place in the scheme of things.
The misconception is that we can be more important than our purpose.
Everything in the Universe has a purpose. Sometimes it is hard to see what the purpose is but we have one nonetheless. Humanity's purpose is to survive and evolve, and to perfect itself by achieving harmony with the Universe and all life. There are those who see themselves as greater than the Universe. They selfishly imagine that they are the reason for its creation.
It is part of the misconception.
Present humanity can be a bridge to the future, but it is not the next evolution of humanity. The Over-man. That one is yet to come. For the present we all have a choice between being sad or glorious. We can choose to be the bridge to a higher evolution, or we can choose to impede its progress. If we choose to hinder the New Man from coming into being we are already obsolete. And, we have no place in the scheme of things.
The misconception is that we can be more important than our purpose.
Everything in the Universe has a purpose. Sometimes it is hard to see what the purpose is but we have one nonetheless. Humanity's purpose is to survive and evolve, and to perfect itself by achieving harmony with the Universe and all life. There are those who see themselves as greater than the Universe. They selfishly imagine that they are the reason for its creation.
It is part of the misconception.
2011-06-13
Transcendence
In religion, transcendence is a trance-like condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence and in one form is also independent of it. It is typically manifested in prayer, séance, meditation and paranormal "visions". It is affirmed in the concept of the divine in the major religious traditions, and contrasts with the notion of God, or the Absolute, existing exclusively in the physical order, or indistinguishable from it. Transcendence can be attributed to the divine not only in its being, but also in its knowledge. Thus, God transcends the universe, but also transcends knowledge (is beyond the grasp of the human mind). Although transcendence is defined as the opposite of immanence, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some theologians and metaphysicians of the great religious traditions affirm that God, or Brahman, is both within and beyond the universe; in it, but not of it; simultaneously pervading it and surpassing it.
In 1961, Vahanian's book The Death of God was published. Vahanian argued that modern secular culture had lost all sense of the sacred, lacking any sacramental meaning, no transcendental purpose or sense of providence. He concluded that for the modern mind "God is dead", but he did not mean that God did not exist. In Vahanian's vision a transformed post-Christian and post-modern culture was needed to create a renewed experience of deity.
Both Van Buren and Hamilton agreed that the concept of transcendence had lost any meaningful place in modern thought. According to the norms of contemporary modern thought, God is dead. In responding to this collapse in transcendence Van Buren and Hamilton offered secular people the option of Jesus as the model human who acted in love. The encounter with the Christ of faith would be open in a church-community.
Altizer offered a radical theology of the death of God that drew upon William Blake, Hegelian thought and Nietzschean ideas. He conceived of theology as a form of poetry in which the immanence (presence) of God could be encountered in faith communities. However, he no longer accepted the possibility of affirming belief in a transcendent God. Altizer concluded that God had incarnated in Christ and imparted his immanent spirit which remained in the world even though Jesus was dead.
I guess you could say the same thing about National Socialism.
In 1961, Vahanian's book The Death of God was published. Vahanian argued that modern secular culture had lost all sense of the sacred, lacking any sacramental meaning, no transcendental purpose or sense of providence. He concluded that for the modern mind "God is dead", but he did not mean that God did not exist. In Vahanian's vision a transformed post-Christian and post-modern culture was needed to create a renewed experience of deity.
Both Van Buren and Hamilton agreed that the concept of transcendence had lost any meaningful place in modern thought. According to the norms of contemporary modern thought, God is dead. In responding to this collapse in transcendence Van Buren and Hamilton offered secular people the option of Jesus as the model human who acted in love. The encounter with the Christ of faith would be open in a church-community.
Altizer offered a radical theology of the death of God that drew upon William Blake, Hegelian thought and Nietzschean ideas. He conceived of theology as a form of poetry in which the immanence (presence) of God could be encountered in faith communities. However, he no longer accepted the possibility of affirming belief in a transcendent God. Altizer concluded that God had incarnated in Christ and imparted his immanent spirit which remained in the world even though Jesus was dead.
I guess you could say the same thing about National Socialism.
2011-06-12
The Awakening
An "awakening" is a moment of clarity in which a new insight or understanding is gained. With this new awareness the experience of life is seen differently, and new possibilities are opened. Changes in patterns of thought, emotions, and behavior occur. An awakening allows the possibility of growth to new levels of psychological and spiritual maturity.
Grumbling about your present reality does not help. You must be open to every moment. You never know what it will bring.
Picture yourself in the prison of your own construction. Your social security number is stencilled across your prison uniform. You are securely locked into your own dark imaginings. There is seemingly no escape from your sentence. What is your crime? You have believed the lies that have been told to you since birth. One group of liars has told you that you can find happiness only through consumerism. Another has told you that you must obey and submit to the status quo. Still another tells you that you will be rewarded for all the good things you do, and the bad, after you die. You are confined because you are naive, and because your leaders are liars, criminals and hypocrites.
One day a man enters your cell. Some sort of chaplain you suppose. He asks if there is anything he can do for you... and you converse for awhile about mundane subjects. Suddenly, he grabs you by the shoulders and looks you right in the eye.
"None of this is real," he says; "You are sleeping and need to wake the fuck up!"
A bad dream? What a strange idea. And then, in the blink of an eye, he vanishes. You ask the guard where the stranger went and he looks at you like you are crazy.
"There was no one else here," he says.
Grumbling about your present reality does not help. You must be open to every moment. You never know what it will bring.
Picture yourself in the prison of your own construction. Your social security number is stencilled across your prison uniform. You are securely locked into your own dark imaginings. There is seemingly no escape from your sentence. What is your crime? You have believed the lies that have been told to you since birth. One group of liars has told you that you can find happiness only through consumerism. Another has told you that you must obey and submit to the status quo. Still another tells you that you will be rewarded for all the good things you do, and the bad, after you die. You are confined because you are naive, and because your leaders are liars, criminals and hypocrites.
One day a man enters your cell. Some sort of chaplain you suppose. He asks if there is anything he can do for you... and you converse for awhile about mundane subjects. Suddenly, he grabs you by the shoulders and looks you right in the eye.
"None of this is real," he says; "You are sleeping and need to wake the fuck up!"
A bad dream? What a strange idea. And then, in the blink of an eye, he vanishes. You ask the guard where the stranger went and he looks at you like you are crazy.
"There was no one else here," he says.
2011-06-11
A Work Without Imperfection
There are no seams in the garments of God.
Unfortunately, there are seams in the costumes that we fabricate for ourselves. We create patterns and cut out all these individual pieces that must first be pinned up and then sewn together, often one stitch at a time. Then, of course the garment has to be fitted. It is an ongoing process. The "true artist" has a remarkable gift, like that of a child, he can instinctively "feel" what does not belong. Therefore, the final goal of his art is to eliminate the superfluous.
We need to develop this ability and refine it. The final product would be similar to Zen Buddhism.
The basic premise that the highest truth, or first principle, or Tao, is not expressible in words or conceivable through logical thought is common to both Taoism and Zen. Both hold, moreover, that an intuitive understanding of the first principle is possible, and this is called enlightenment. The enlightened Taoist sage is considered to have gained some special knowledge, coupled with arcane skills, and thus becomes somehow removed from the world, but the Zen Master gains nothing other than the realization that there is nothing to gain, and is thus more than ever in the world.
Enlightenment consists in realizing that Buddha-nature exists in everything and everyone. "See into your own mind" and you will find the Buddha-nature that has been there all along. The historical Buddha is no greater or less than the lowest sentient being--all share in Buddha-nature. Scriptures are useless, ritual leads nowhere. Enlightenment is possible for everyone: the illiterate can achieve the same experience as the learned scholar. Eternity is here and now. One need not seek to learn something new, just realize what is already present.
Buddha-nature is not metaphysical, not something apart from ourselves. There is nothing to gain from enlightenment. We realize that there is nothing to realize. Some Zen scholars have been more adamant on this point than others. Suzuki has said: "Before Zen men are men and mountains are mountains; during Zen study things become confused; after enlightenment men are men and mountains are mountains, only one's feet are a little off the ground." Other scholars hold that there is nothing at all: we have always been enlightened, and will forever be deluded; Zen enlightenment consists only in this realization.
To pass from delusion to enlightenment means to leave one's mortal humanity behind and enter sagehood. The life of the sage, however, . . . is no different from that of ordinary men, for "the ordinary mind is the Tao," and the sage's mind is the ordinary mind.
According to both Zen and Taoism, the attempted control of nature by man is at once absurd and useless. The history of Western society and its technology has been the story of man's long struggle to control nature. The Taoist would say: act like water, through yielding is strength. When dealing with men rather than nature, the Taoist would counsel that, after recognizing the inherent power of yielding, one may also use strength if the particular situation warrants it. The Zen master merely says: act and don't worry about it; what you do may be right or wrong, neither is bad. That is, from the universal point of view there is no right and wrong: these are values superimposed by society--the universe makes no distinctions or categories.
Many scholars have ventured general comparisons of Eastern and Western Art. Suzuki suggests that Oriental art depicts spirit, while Western art depicts form. Watts holds that the West sees and depicts nature in terms of man-made symmetries and super imposed forms, squeezing nature to fit his own ideas, while the East accepts the object as is, and presents it for what it is, not what the artist thinks it means. Gulick puts it this way:
Oriental artists are not interested in a photographic representation of an object but in interpreting its spirit. Occidental art exalts personality, is anthropocentric. Oriental art has been cosmocentric. It sees man as an integral part of nature. The affinity between man and nature was what impressed Oriental artists rather than their contrast, as in the West. To Occidentals, the physical world was an objective reality - to be analyzed, used, mastered. To Orientals, on the contrary, it was a realm of beauty to be admired, but also of mystery and illusion to be pictured by poets, explained by myth makers, and mollified by priestly incantations. This contrast between East and West had incalculable influence on their respective arts, as well as on their philosophies and religions.
Art in the West has developed a complex linguistic symbolism through which the artist manipulates his material to communicate something to his audience. Art as communication is basic to Western aesthetics, as is the corollary interrelationship of form and content. Music is considered a language of feeling and consists of "sonorous moving forms." A landscape painting in the Western tradition is not merely an aesthetically pleasing reproduction; the artist uses his techniques of balance, perspective, and color, to express a personal reaction to the landscape - his painting is a frozen human mood. The aesthetic object is used as a link between the audience and the artist's feelings. And the artist's technique is used to create an illusion of the forms of reality.
The Zen artist, on the other hand, tries to suggest by the simplest possible means the inherent nature of the aesthetic object. Anything may be painted, or expressed in poetry, and any sounds may become music. The job of the artist is to suggest the essence, the eternal qualities of the object, which is in itself a work of natural art before the artist arrives on the scene. In order to achieve this, the artist must fully understand the inner nature of the aesthetic object, its Buddha nature. This is the hard part. Technique, though important, is useless without it; and the actual execution of the art work may be startlingly spontaneous, once the artist has comprehended the essence of his subject.
Belief in the superiority of spiritual mastery over technical mastery is evidenced by numerous stories of bushido matches (Japanese sword fighting) in which untrained monks defeated trained samurai because they naturally comprehended the basic nature of the bushido contest, and had no fear of death whatsoever.
He who has ears let him hear.
Unfortunately, there are seams in the costumes that we fabricate for ourselves. We create patterns and cut out all these individual pieces that must first be pinned up and then sewn together, often one stitch at a time. Then, of course the garment has to be fitted. It is an ongoing process. The "true artist" has a remarkable gift, like that of a child, he can instinctively "feel" what does not belong. Therefore, the final goal of his art is to eliminate the superfluous.
We need to develop this ability and refine it. The final product would be similar to Zen Buddhism.
The basic premise that the highest truth, or first principle, or Tao, is not expressible in words or conceivable through logical thought is common to both Taoism and Zen. Both hold, moreover, that an intuitive understanding of the first principle is possible, and this is called enlightenment. The enlightened Taoist sage is considered to have gained some special knowledge, coupled with arcane skills, and thus becomes somehow removed from the world, but the Zen Master gains nothing other than the realization that there is nothing to gain, and is thus more than ever in the world.
Enlightenment consists in realizing that Buddha-nature exists in everything and everyone. "See into your own mind" and you will find the Buddha-nature that has been there all along. The historical Buddha is no greater or less than the lowest sentient being--all share in Buddha-nature. Scriptures are useless, ritual leads nowhere. Enlightenment is possible for everyone: the illiterate can achieve the same experience as the learned scholar. Eternity is here and now. One need not seek to learn something new, just realize what is already present.
Buddha-nature is not metaphysical, not something apart from ourselves. There is nothing to gain from enlightenment. We realize that there is nothing to realize. Some Zen scholars have been more adamant on this point than others. Suzuki has said: "Before Zen men are men and mountains are mountains; during Zen study things become confused; after enlightenment men are men and mountains are mountains, only one's feet are a little off the ground." Other scholars hold that there is nothing at all: we have always been enlightened, and will forever be deluded; Zen enlightenment consists only in this realization.
To pass from delusion to enlightenment means to leave one's mortal humanity behind and enter sagehood. The life of the sage, however, . . . is no different from that of ordinary men, for "the ordinary mind is the Tao," and the sage's mind is the ordinary mind.
According to both Zen and Taoism, the attempted control of nature by man is at once absurd and useless. The history of Western society and its technology has been the story of man's long struggle to control nature. The Taoist would say: act like water, through yielding is strength. When dealing with men rather than nature, the Taoist would counsel that, after recognizing the inherent power of yielding, one may also use strength if the particular situation warrants it. The Zen master merely says: act and don't worry about it; what you do may be right or wrong, neither is bad. That is, from the universal point of view there is no right and wrong: these are values superimposed by society--the universe makes no distinctions or categories.
Many scholars have ventured general comparisons of Eastern and Western Art. Suzuki suggests that Oriental art depicts spirit, while Western art depicts form. Watts holds that the West sees and depicts nature in terms of man-made symmetries and super imposed forms, squeezing nature to fit his own ideas, while the East accepts the object as is, and presents it for what it is, not what the artist thinks it means. Gulick puts it this way:
Oriental artists are not interested in a photographic representation of an object but in interpreting its spirit. Occidental art exalts personality, is anthropocentric. Oriental art has been cosmocentric. It sees man as an integral part of nature. The affinity between man and nature was what impressed Oriental artists rather than their contrast, as in the West. To Occidentals, the physical world was an objective reality - to be analyzed, used, mastered. To Orientals, on the contrary, it was a realm of beauty to be admired, but also of mystery and illusion to be pictured by poets, explained by myth makers, and mollified by priestly incantations. This contrast between East and West had incalculable influence on their respective arts, as well as on their philosophies and religions.
Art in the West has developed a complex linguistic symbolism through which the artist manipulates his material to communicate something to his audience. Art as communication is basic to Western aesthetics, as is the corollary interrelationship of form and content. Music is considered a language of feeling and consists of "sonorous moving forms." A landscape painting in the Western tradition is not merely an aesthetically pleasing reproduction; the artist uses his techniques of balance, perspective, and color, to express a personal reaction to the landscape - his painting is a frozen human mood. The aesthetic object is used as a link between the audience and the artist's feelings. And the artist's technique is used to create an illusion of the forms of reality.
The Zen artist, on the other hand, tries to suggest by the simplest possible means the inherent nature of the aesthetic object. Anything may be painted, or expressed in poetry, and any sounds may become music. The job of the artist is to suggest the essence, the eternal qualities of the object, which is in itself a work of natural art before the artist arrives on the scene. In order to achieve this, the artist must fully understand the inner nature of the aesthetic object, its Buddha nature. This is the hard part. Technique, though important, is useless without it; and the actual execution of the art work may be startlingly spontaneous, once the artist has comprehended the essence of his subject.
Belief in the superiority of spiritual mastery over technical mastery is evidenced by numerous stories of bushido matches (Japanese sword fighting) in which untrained monks defeated trained samurai because they naturally comprehended the basic nature of the bushido contest, and had no fear of death whatsoever.
He who has ears let him hear.
2011-06-10
Credits and Debits
I read a science fiction novel where the individual's genetic material was deposited in an account and on that person's death and subsequent evaluation of his life it was decided, by a board of inquiry, whether or not that person's life merited that his genetic material continue in the world.
This type of system would be useful in complex cases where a careful accounting would be required to make an intelligent determination.
The case of Heinrich Himmler springs to mind. Here is a man who would eliminate a person's entire clan on the basis of loyalty; yet, who, in the end, was guilty of betraying the Fuehrer, the Party, the Reich and the Volk (not to mention the SS itself).
Certainly his years of service should be a mitigating factor in the equation. Especially since we all realize that:
"Well, you see, ...in this war, things get confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity. But out there with these natives, it must be a temptation to be God. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature." - General Corman from Apocalypse Now.
Can Heinrich Himmler be rehabilitated?
This is an interesting legal consideration. I would ask that we give these kinds of questions some serious consideration. And, unfortunately, there are more cases at issue than only this one. For instance can Erwin Rommel be rehabilitated? (Late in the war, Rommel was linked to the conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler. Due to his wide renown, Hitler chose to eliminate him quietly; in trade for the protection of his family, Rommel agreed to commit suicide.) What about Karl Doenitz? (He was the last President of the Third Reich. On 7 May 1945, he ordered Alfred Jodl to sign the instruments of unconditional surrender in Rheims, France.)
Think on these things.
This type of system would be useful in complex cases where a careful accounting would be required to make an intelligent determination.
The case of Heinrich Himmler springs to mind. Here is a man who would eliminate a person's entire clan on the basis of loyalty; yet, who, in the end, was guilty of betraying the Fuehrer, the Party, the Reich and the Volk (not to mention the SS itself).
Certainly his years of service should be a mitigating factor in the equation. Especially since we all realize that:
"Well, you see, ...in this war, things get confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, and practical military necessity. But out there with these natives, it must be a temptation to be God. Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature." - General Corman from Apocalypse Now.
Can Heinrich Himmler be rehabilitated?
This is an interesting legal consideration. I would ask that we give these kinds of questions some serious consideration. And, unfortunately, there are more cases at issue than only this one. For instance can Erwin Rommel be rehabilitated? (Late in the war, Rommel was linked to the conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler. Due to his wide renown, Hitler chose to eliminate him quietly; in trade for the protection of his family, Rommel agreed to commit suicide.) What about Karl Doenitz? (He was the last President of the Third Reich. On 7 May 1945, he ordered Alfred Jodl to sign the instruments of unconditional surrender in Rheims, France.)
Think on these things.
2011-06-07
Reality
Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Community, which is collective and immortal.
At what point does the mind finally snap, and, we succumb to the dark forces of the universe? When do we finally throw our diapers aside and embrace the rough woolen garments of manhood. Make no mistake, everybody has a breaking point and when you reach yours your reality will become punctured and a ray of divine light will shine through.
All is BOLLIX! That is the message that I impart to you. There are no better worlds on the distant horizon. Life is suffering and pain and as the number of humans on this planet increases so shall the trials and tribulations of Man. Until, one day in the distant future, someone will look for answers in the junk yard of history... and the ancient wrongs will be righted again.
Most everything you believe is a lie. The truth is also a lie - in that it does not follow a straight line. It is like a diamond and has facets that unfold before the mind's eye. The simple mind wants nursery-rhyme truth... that is the basic problem. If the run-of-the-mill were capable of understanding they would not be slaves. Yet they are merely herd animals being fattened for the eventual slaughter.
There is a storm coming....
At what point does the mind finally snap, and, we succumb to the dark forces of the universe? When do we finally throw our diapers aside and embrace the rough woolen garments of manhood. Make no mistake, everybody has a breaking point and when you reach yours your reality will become punctured and a ray of divine light will shine through.
All is BOLLIX! That is the message that I impart to you. There are no better worlds on the distant horizon. Life is suffering and pain and as the number of humans on this planet increases so shall the trials and tribulations of Man. Until, one day in the distant future, someone will look for answers in the junk yard of history... and the ancient wrongs will be righted again.
Most everything you believe is a lie. The truth is also a lie - in that it does not follow a straight line. It is like a diamond and has facets that unfold before the mind's eye. The simple mind wants nursery-rhyme truth... that is the basic problem. If the run-of-the-mill were capable of understanding they would not be slaves. Yet they are merely herd animals being fattened for the eventual slaughter.
There is a storm coming....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)