The 'Outsider' or 'genius' represents the type of human being who is in the evolutionary vanguard of the species: the 'Outsider' is what all human beings will one day be like--probably, as Erich Fromm said, thousands of years from now. The 'Outsider' literally is THAT far ahead of the rest of the human race, in terms of his emotional and intellectual development. And it is for this reason, then, that the 'Outsider' is such the social misfit that he now is--why he hates his fellow human beings so much; because to him, they scarcely even seem 'human', and because he is unfortunately born much too soon, in comparison to the level of development and awareness that the rest of humanity are still trapped at. Their frequent blind, slavish dependence upon primitive animal emotion and fear-based taboo strike him as not only unworthy of a so-called 'rational', 'mature', 'adult' human population, but still more characteristic of the LESSER ANIMALS than even a human CHILD.
The 'Outsider' represents the hopes and (subconscious) aspirations and strivings of the entire human race--indeed, of all life on this planet--the inexorable, unconscious pushing of all life to attain ever greater and greater levels of sentience, or awareness. So to the human race, he is (or SHOULD be) invaluable, priceless, in the same sense in which people like Socrates, Jesus, or even Einstein are usually thought of (mostly AFTER their deaths).
But alas, more often than not, the very opposite is in fact the case regarding the 'Outsider' and his relations with his peer society: more often than not, he finds himself shunned, hated, and persecuted, because he is in fact significantly different from his neighbours. His contemporaries can no more comprehend his mind and awareness of things than our primitive cave-man ancestors could have comprehended the conversation of even an ordinary assembly-line worker, or a 'sanitation specialist' of today's average world.
So, from the point of view of the 'history' which is to be written by the future, the 'Outsider' or 'genius' is very valuable, but from the point of view of his peer culture, he is usually just the opposite: an object of fear, mistrust, scorn, derision, and sometimes fury. To the living 'Outsider' alive in the present, his condition seems to him very often as one of unending MISERY, unless by some miracle he is able to come to truly know himself, and thus understand exactly what is going on.
9 May, 2000, from an earlier train of thought of around 1998.
________________________
Compared with the short span of time they live, men of great intellect are like huge buildings, standing on a small plot of ground. The size of the building cannot be seen by anyone, just in front of it; nor, for an analogous reason, can the greatness of a genius be estimated while he lives. But when a century has passed, the world recognizes it and wishes him back again.
Arthur Schopenhauer, from Reputation.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Nobility or Greatness of Soul
According to my experience and knowledge, two main things account for the 'nobility' of individual human beings; this is therefore how I would define the phenomenon of 'nobility' (NOT, of course, in the sense of 'aristocrats'):
One, the fact that one continues to exist and to fight in the face of (and in spite of) incredible, overwhelming odds--to fight against a seemingly impersonal, apathetic universe which threatens at all times to completely overwhelm and defeat one. This is strength of character, and is my first criterion.
Two, to continue to fight KNOWING the power that the universe has over one. This requires DEPTH--depth of soul, depth of experience, depth of culture. Pascal, of course, wonderfully and poetically stated this point--perhaps better than I have seen it expressed elsewhere.
The first criterion expresses the Nietzschean sense of the individual--his primal strength of soul; the second, the Pascalian sense--his depth and breadth of soul. BOTH give to the individual that character which I would call true 'nobility' of soul; but NOT, I would say, either one of them separately.
For instance, one can be completely ignorant both culturally and in the sense of pure 'knowledge' (or experience) and yet still have enormous strength of character to continue to fight to exist. Street people, it seems to me, exhibit this trait. They exist, they survive, but they know not either who they are, nor where they might be going; and often--due to the immediacy of the problem of their mere survival, some would say--they do not even care to know any of these things.
Then there is the phenomenon of the person of fully knows his predicament, but has little or no strength of character to withstand it; and thus he frequently terminates his own existence.
It is only when and if the two traits are combined in one individual, I say, that we see the phenomenon of the 'noble' or 'great' soul--the MAHATMA (even if he also may eventually 'wreck' his own life): the great one, the great life, the noble example of a human life for us to wonder at and seek all our lives to try to emulate.
5 April, 1994.
One, the fact that one continues to exist and to fight in the face of (and in spite of) incredible, overwhelming odds--to fight against a seemingly impersonal, apathetic universe which threatens at all times to completely overwhelm and defeat one. This is strength of character, and is my first criterion.
Two, to continue to fight KNOWING the power that the universe has over one. This requires DEPTH--depth of soul, depth of experience, depth of culture. Pascal, of course, wonderfully and poetically stated this point--perhaps better than I have seen it expressed elsewhere.
The first criterion expresses the Nietzschean sense of the individual--his primal strength of soul; the second, the Pascalian sense--his depth and breadth of soul. BOTH give to the individual that character which I would call true 'nobility' of soul; but NOT, I would say, either one of them separately.
For instance, one can be completely ignorant both culturally and in the sense of pure 'knowledge' (or experience) and yet still have enormous strength of character to continue to fight to exist. Street people, it seems to me, exhibit this trait. They exist, they survive, but they know not either who they are, nor where they might be going; and often--due to the immediacy of the problem of their mere survival, some would say--they do not even care to know any of these things.
Then there is the phenomenon of the person of fully knows his predicament, but has little or no strength of character to withstand it; and thus he frequently terminates his own existence.
It is only when and if the two traits are combined in one individual, I say, that we see the phenomenon of the 'noble' or 'great' soul--the MAHATMA (even if he also may eventually 'wreck' his own life): the great one, the great life, the noble example of a human life for us to wonder at and seek all our lives to try to emulate.
5 April, 1994.
Mental Freedom
It is quite clear that any person who has managed to educate himself, who has managed to free himself from slavish submission to his society's socialisation, or subtle brainwashing--without feeling any shame, guilt, or fear because of being thus unique and different from the 'herd'--will have become very strong emotionally--very strong-willed, or strong-purposed, and will be quite capable of most any behaviour which his society may otherwise label as aberrant, deviant, anti-social, or violent--if such should be his wish. Such a person as this is truly free--and only this type of person is truly free.
His society, it is true, if it becomes aware of just how dangerously free he is (and his mental freedom can be a real danger to it), will quickly and inevitably try to imprison him, which is to say, to immediately and drastically try to curtail his mental (and physical) freedom. This is why it is often said that there is only a thin line between genius and insanity; and by 'genius' I mean mental freedom, brilliance of thought, and the daring, courageous strength of will to follow any impulse through to its logical conclusion, regardless of what consequences it might entail.
Quite simply, the 'herd', the mass of mankind, cannot easily or readily distinguish between 'insanity' and 'genius' (as I define it here); and thus it is that those few, rare souls who have found and followed a radically different vision or mindset will usually be perceived by the majority to be quite abnormal, quite the 'freak of nature'--possibly even quite insane--because, as stated, they possess a seemingly dangerous mental freedom: the usual rules of 'right' and 'wrong' mean little or nothing to them (and recall what Hesse had to say in this connection), and they are therefore very unpredictable in behaviour, and very uncontrollable; their majority will thus understandably fear them, and will nervously try to control (and imprison) them (though this is not to excuse such behaviour on the part of societal majorities).
Apollinaire was quite correct: Sade was, without question, just such a free spirit and mind as this. Nietzsche was another (also Whitman and Thoreau). Sade, if his intellect and depth of knowledge did not outshine Nietzsche's, at least dared to express his mental freedom in a far more direct and physical a manner than Nietzsche (evidently) did. Nietzsche apparently was more content to merely roam the field of the world mentally, without so much feeling the need to 'pull the nose of society', as it were, or to translate his natural impulses into physicality, action, or violence.
And other free minds have existed also, from age to age. Usually, they were either crucified, imprisoned, or burned at the stake--when they could be apprehended. Those who somehow eluded capture usually lived on the fringes of society, as outcasts, rogues, bandits, or even pirates. Every age has seen them; in the Middle Ages they were called variously as either 'Crusaders', or 'Vikings', and when those names no longer "covered a multitude of sins," poor Gilles de Rais was left holding the bag. He merely lacked the social event of sufficient magnitude to justify his untoward actions in the eyes of his majority. Very often in modern times, wars have provided this justification for modern man. It has been said before that every generation needs a good war, and here is the reason why.
I think it important to clarify here, for the weak, exactly what I mean: the Overman need not necessarily become a Sade, a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Dahmer. But he certainly can be, if that be his nature. The basic idea is to not be AFRAID to become ANYTHING, if it be your nature, or lot in life, to become it. Admit to every hidden impulse that resides within you; do not be afraid to accept and claim ANY part of yourself--your inner being. Poet, Painter, Saint, 'Sinner' or Rebel ... all are EQUAL possibilities to the Overman. He only knows that he will most definitely become SOMETHING, and would rather kill himself than become a spineless 'milquetoast' like so many of the quivering jellyfish he sees around him, who somehow pass for MEN, for real human beings. He has a passion for life and self-expression which WILL NOT BE DENIED, whatever may stand in the way.
One final word: compared to this GIANT, this brilliant, mentally-free SUPERMAN, the mass of mankind seem nothing so much as a mass of quivering, bewildered, fog-bound MICE. The Overman is the only one who can see and understand clearly. And it seems to me, if I remember correctly, that Nietzsche himself said much the same thing once, save that he used the word 'ape' instead of 'mouse'. The basic question for mankind: what is it to be--mice, or men?
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" I choose to take my life into my own hands, to be beholden to and responsible to no one; to live my life for better or worse as myself, for myself, and by myself; I choose to be strong, to gather my will unto myself, and to give it free rein, to let it loose upon the world, be that for what others may call 'good' or for 'ill'; I choose, in short, to be a MAN.
31 March, 1995--11 February, 1999.
His society, it is true, if it becomes aware of just how dangerously free he is (and his mental freedom can be a real danger to it), will quickly and inevitably try to imprison him, which is to say, to immediately and drastically try to curtail his mental (and physical) freedom. This is why it is often said that there is only a thin line between genius and insanity; and by 'genius' I mean mental freedom, brilliance of thought, and the daring, courageous strength of will to follow any impulse through to its logical conclusion, regardless of what consequences it might entail.
Quite simply, the 'herd', the mass of mankind, cannot easily or readily distinguish between 'insanity' and 'genius' (as I define it here); and thus it is that those few, rare souls who have found and followed a radically different vision or mindset will usually be perceived by the majority to be quite abnormal, quite the 'freak of nature'--possibly even quite insane--because, as stated, they possess a seemingly dangerous mental freedom: the usual rules of 'right' and 'wrong' mean little or nothing to them (and recall what Hesse had to say in this connection), and they are therefore very unpredictable in behaviour, and very uncontrollable; their majority will thus understandably fear them, and will nervously try to control (and imprison) them (though this is not to excuse such behaviour on the part of societal majorities).
Apollinaire was quite correct: Sade was, without question, just such a free spirit and mind as this. Nietzsche was another (also Whitman and Thoreau). Sade, if his intellect and depth of knowledge did not outshine Nietzsche's, at least dared to express his mental freedom in a far more direct and physical a manner than Nietzsche (evidently) did. Nietzsche apparently was more content to merely roam the field of the world mentally, without so much feeling the need to 'pull the nose of society', as it were, or to translate his natural impulses into physicality, action, or violence.
And other free minds have existed also, from age to age. Usually, they were either crucified, imprisoned, or burned at the stake--when they could be apprehended. Those who somehow eluded capture usually lived on the fringes of society, as outcasts, rogues, bandits, or even pirates. Every age has seen them; in the Middle Ages they were called variously as either 'Crusaders', or 'Vikings', and when those names no longer "covered a multitude of sins," poor Gilles de Rais was left holding the bag. He merely lacked the social event of sufficient magnitude to justify his untoward actions in the eyes of his majority. Very often in modern times, wars have provided this justification for modern man. It has been said before that every generation needs a good war, and here is the reason why.
I think it important to clarify here, for the weak, exactly what I mean: the Overman need not necessarily become a Sade, a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Dahmer. But he certainly can be, if that be his nature. The basic idea is to not be AFRAID to become ANYTHING, if it be your nature, or lot in life, to become it. Admit to every hidden impulse that resides within you; do not be afraid to accept and claim ANY part of yourself--your inner being. Poet, Painter, Saint, 'Sinner' or Rebel ... all are EQUAL possibilities to the Overman. He only knows that he will most definitely become SOMETHING, and would rather kill himself than become a spineless 'milquetoast' like so many of the quivering jellyfish he sees around him, who somehow pass for MEN, for real human beings. He has a passion for life and self-expression which WILL NOT BE DENIED, whatever may stand in the way.
One final word: compared to this GIANT, this brilliant, mentally-free SUPERMAN, the mass of mankind seem nothing so much as a mass of quivering, bewildered, fog-bound MICE. The Overman is the only one who can see and understand clearly. And it seems to me, if I remember correctly, that Nietzsche himself said much the same thing once, save that he used the word 'ape' instead of 'mouse'. The basic question for mankind: what is it to be--mice, or men?
"I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" I choose to take my life into my own hands, to be beholden to and responsible to no one; to live my life for better or worse as myself, for myself, and by myself; I choose to be strong, to gather my will unto myself, and to give it free rein, to let it loose upon the world, be that for what others may call 'good' or for 'ill'; I choose, in short, to be a MAN.
31 March, 1995--11 February, 1999.
Nietzsche, Whitman, and Thoreau
Whitman and Thoreau were living, breathing examples of what Nietzsche was later to term the "strong human being ... [from] the wilderness, a somehow freer and more dangerous environment and form of existence, where everything that is weapons and armor in the instinct of the strong human being has its rightful place, ... a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea. ... the scientific character, the artist, the genius, the free spirit, the actor, the merchant, the great discoverer. ..." [Twilight of the Idols, 45]
"For believe me," says Nietzsche, "the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods!" [The Gay Science, 283]
_________________________
"Not suitable as a party member. Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party."
Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, 579.
I now rephrase a few key words to make this more applicable to the modern age: Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a church-member: he soon thinks himself right through the church. I know this certainly happened in my own case. 'Church' dogma is so flimsy and wobbly that I sometimes wonder that more people do not pierce through it, and see it for the sham that it really is, than actually do. Doesn't say too much for the human race at large, generally speaking, does it? But then again, not much ever does.
16 February, 2003.
(See also Twilight of the Idols, 2).
"For believe me," says Nietzsche, "the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods!" [The Gay Science, 283]
_________________________
"Not suitable as a party member. Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right through the party."
Nietzsche, Human, All-Too-Human, 579.
I now rephrase a few key words to make this more applicable to the modern age: Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a church-member: he soon thinks himself right through the church. I know this certainly happened in my own case. 'Church' dogma is so flimsy and wobbly that I sometimes wonder that more people do not pierce through it, and see it for the sham that it really is, than actually do. Doesn't say too much for the human race at large, generally speaking, does it? But then again, not much ever does.
16 February, 2003.
(See also Twilight of the Idols, 2).
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Excerpts from Colin Wilson's "Religion and the Rebel"
SPIRITUAL HELL IS TO PLACE A MAN OF HIGH ABILITIES AND GREAT TALENT IN A POSITION WHERE HE WILL BE FRUSTRATED AND BORED, DENIED SELF-EXPRESSION. IT IS, IN SHORT, THE OUTSIDER'S POSITION IN THE WORLD.
[Emphasis added, as hereafter]
The Outsider could be compared to a man who has been hypnotised, and lowered into a cage full of apes. The hypnosis prevents him from understanding why he finds the apes so disgusting and stupid. He only knows that he detests them. He believes he is an ape too. His solution lies in deliberately fighting the hypnosis, in telling himself: I am not an ape; I must be something more than an ape. [This will be a] ...difficult matter if his hypnosis--his conditioning as an ape--inclines him to give up the struggle and become 'a member of the simian race' and a good citizen of the ape community.
THE OUTSIDER'S DESPAIR, IN FACT, COMES FROM HIS VISION OF THE VAST SEA OF MEDIOCRITY THAT MAKES UP HUMANKIND, AND HIS REBELLION AT THE IDEA OF BELONGING TO IT. The perfect example of this attitude is in Swift, whose loathing of human beings has frequently been called 'pathological,' insane, psychotic--although to any Outsider, it looks reasonable and normal enough. ...
WHEN THE OUTSIDER IS IN HIS EARLIEST STAGES--WHEN HE DOES NOT KNOW HIMSELF[*] OR UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS 'OUT OF HARMONY' WITH THE REST OF HUMANKIND--HIS HATRED FOR MEN AND THE WORLD MAKES HIM AN UNBALANCED MISFIT, A MAN FULL OF SPITE AND ENVY, NEUROTIC, COWARDLY, SHRINKING AND WINCING. HIS SALVATION DEPENDS UPON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SELF-UNDERSTANDING, SELF-KNOWLEDGE. IT IS ONLY WHEN HE BEGINS TO FIND HIMSELF THAT HE REALISES THAT HIS HATRED IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED: A HEALTHY REACTION TO A WORLD OF SICK HALF-MEN. ...
For the simplest way to define an 'Outsider' would be to say that he is a man for whom the world as most men see it is a lie and a deception. ... The fact that men need one another, that they live in close contact, means that they all impose their way of seeing on one another. This means that while a man is a member of society, it is impossible for him to achieve any vision of the world radically different from that of his fellow-men. ... COMPLETE ISOLATION--that is what the Outsider is driving at. He knows that, if he could only achieve it, there is a completely different way of seeing the world--a way so different that one might almost say that it would no longer be the same world. THE OUTSIDER'S FINAL PROBLEM IS TO BECOME A VISIONARY. THE FIRST AND MOST OBVIOUS STEP IS TO CUT HIMSELF OFF FROM OTHER PEOPLE, SO AS NOT TO BE CONDITIONED BY THEIR WAY OF SEEING. ...
The idea of hell is fundamental to the Outsider's way of thinking. He lives in a world of apes, whom he detests. He is told that 'religion' consists in loving your neighbour as yourself, and in practising the virtues of patience and charity. The most the Outsider can say is that he dislikes his neighbour just a little more than he dislikes himself. Most human beings strike him as being so stupid that they might as well be dead; consequently, he has none of the 'respect for human life' that most religions enjoin. His credo is a doctrine of self-expression, and if self-expression means war and murder, he unhesitatingly prefers it to the doctrine of peace and goodwill towards men. BY CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS, HE IS A DANGEROUS AND ANTI-SOCIAL MAN WHO SHOULD BE QUIETLY EXTERMINATED FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.
* This idea of 'knowing yourself' is precisely the advice which the Delphic Oracle gave to Socrates: "gnothi seauton" (or "know thyself").
Also (by the way), Thoreau said much the same thing that Wilson says here, in his famous essay "Life Without Principle": that one cannot truly 'find oneself' or 'know oneself' unless one retreats to a profound state of isolation, much in the manner in which proverbial "prophets" have always had to go up into "the mountain" before they are able to return to mankind with a profound new vision of the Divine, or whatever else they saw or discovered. Joseph Campbell also makes this point in his book "Inner Reaches of Outer Space," at much greater length and depth than either Wilson or I have done here.
[Emphasis added, as hereafter]
The Outsider could be compared to a man who has been hypnotised, and lowered into a cage full of apes. The hypnosis prevents him from understanding why he finds the apes so disgusting and stupid. He only knows that he detests them. He believes he is an ape too. His solution lies in deliberately fighting the hypnosis, in telling himself: I am not an ape; I must be something more than an ape. [This will be a] ...difficult matter if his hypnosis--his conditioning as an ape--inclines him to give up the struggle and become 'a member of the simian race' and a good citizen of the ape community.
THE OUTSIDER'S DESPAIR, IN FACT, COMES FROM HIS VISION OF THE VAST SEA OF MEDIOCRITY THAT MAKES UP HUMANKIND, AND HIS REBELLION AT THE IDEA OF BELONGING TO IT. The perfect example of this attitude is in Swift, whose loathing of human beings has frequently been called 'pathological,' insane, psychotic--although to any Outsider, it looks reasonable and normal enough. ...
WHEN THE OUTSIDER IS IN HIS EARLIEST STAGES--WHEN HE DOES NOT KNOW HIMSELF[*] OR UNDERSTAND WHY HE IS 'OUT OF HARMONY' WITH THE REST OF HUMANKIND--HIS HATRED FOR MEN AND THE WORLD MAKES HIM AN UNBALANCED MISFIT, A MAN FULL OF SPITE AND ENVY, NEUROTIC, COWARDLY, SHRINKING AND WINCING. HIS SALVATION DEPENDS UPON THE ACHIEVEMENT OF SELF-UNDERSTANDING, SELF-KNOWLEDGE. IT IS ONLY WHEN HE BEGINS TO FIND HIMSELF THAT HE REALISES THAT HIS HATRED IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED: A HEALTHY REACTION TO A WORLD OF SICK HALF-MEN. ...
For the simplest way to define an 'Outsider' would be to say that he is a man for whom the world as most men see it is a lie and a deception. ... The fact that men need one another, that they live in close contact, means that they all impose their way of seeing on one another. This means that while a man is a member of society, it is impossible for him to achieve any vision of the world radically different from that of his fellow-men. ... COMPLETE ISOLATION--that is what the Outsider is driving at. He knows that, if he could only achieve it, there is a completely different way of seeing the world--a way so different that one might almost say that it would no longer be the same world. THE OUTSIDER'S FINAL PROBLEM IS TO BECOME A VISIONARY. THE FIRST AND MOST OBVIOUS STEP IS TO CUT HIMSELF OFF FROM OTHER PEOPLE, SO AS NOT TO BE CONDITIONED BY THEIR WAY OF SEEING. ...
The idea of hell is fundamental to the Outsider's way of thinking. He lives in a world of apes, whom he detests. He is told that 'religion' consists in loving your neighbour as yourself, and in practising the virtues of patience and charity. The most the Outsider can say is that he dislikes his neighbour just a little more than he dislikes himself. Most human beings strike him as being so stupid that they might as well be dead; consequently, he has none of the 'respect for human life' that most religions enjoin. His credo is a doctrine of self-expression, and if self-expression means war and murder, he unhesitatingly prefers it to the doctrine of peace and goodwill towards men. BY CONVENTIONAL STANDARDS, HE IS A DANGEROUS AND ANTI-SOCIAL MAN WHO SHOULD BE QUIETLY EXTERMINATED FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY.
* This idea of 'knowing yourself' is precisely the advice which the Delphic Oracle gave to Socrates: "gnothi seauton" (or "know thyself").
Also (by the way), Thoreau said much the same thing that Wilson says here, in his famous essay "Life Without Principle": that one cannot truly 'find oneself' or 'know oneself' unless one retreats to a profound state of isolation, much in the manner in which proverbial "prophets" have always had to go up into "the mountain" before they are able to return to mankind with a profound new vision of the Divine, or whatever else they saw or discovered. Joseph Campbell also makes this point in his book "Inner Reaches of Outer Space," at much greater length and depth than either Wilson or I have done here.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Trading Diamonds for Dust
Every day of my life, I observe so many people living what can only be described as tawdry, mediocre lives, utterly devoid of any striving for the beautiful, the noble, the great, excellent, or sublime. I see these people willingly surrounding themselves with a desolate, hopeless, tawdry mediocrity--both physically and spiritually--which to me would be mind-numbing, the very death of my feeling, sensitive soul; and I cannot help but think that they have willingly traded their diamonds for dust, or more accurately, for the very filth of sewers: that they have literally sold their birthright for a 'mess of pottage.'
For the earth was not always like this. When this area was first taken from the native peoples by those of European descent (among whom were many of my own ancestors), this land was literally a realm of magic and wonder, and the native peoples who lived here KNEW this fact. I KNOW it, for I have read some of the first-hand accounts describing it (without hyperbole) as such. It was a land of FEW inhabitants, covered from head to foot by a vast, ancient forest, and filled with sparkling, clear waters, brilliant, many-hued flowers of all description, and populated with a remarkable variety of fauna--all of which, besides existing in its own right, might also have served and benefitted the REASONABLE use of mankind.
But what has European-American mankind done with these treasures--their very inheritance (if it can be called theirs) from God himself? Being dull and unimaginative, and utterly failing to see and understand the miraculous WEALTH all around their very eyes, they have, therefore, only wantonly slaughtered, burned, and destroyed, virtually everywhere they ever went.
DESTROYED?! Theirs is a usage that is so voracious, and so devastatingly complete, that it utterly annihilates in the process of devouring! The hapless mother Earth, it can only be said, they have repeatedly and shamelessly RAPED--all in the name of greed, which of course they justify under the rubric of the "necessity" of their own existence. The shorthand description for all of this boils down to only one small two-word term: profit-making.
All of which is to say (evidently) that the 'business' of profit-making (which they call the business of survival, as if the need for their survival is an excuse for amoral rape and wanton destruction) outweighs all other possible considerations--even the most fundamental ones of the planet itself, or of our brother and sister creations, the animals.
And this is why I have always maintained that the 'businessman' has, ultimately, absolutely no morals whatsoever (and never can have any) beyond the one moral of his own exigency, his own greed. Whatever is necessary to further the ambition of his greed--THAT, and that alone, is his moral purpose.
But even the most dull and unimaginative among us also shares, to some degree, in this terrible tragedy of the soul: for most people, as I have said, willingly relinquish their rich potential (which indeed all were once born with) for a life and environment of the mundane, tame, and mediocre--and think themselves well-off for having done so!--such is the depth of their delusion. And then, by and by, some of them may perchance wonder what is missing in their lives--what(if anything) they may have done wrong.
Suffice it to say that I personally want no part of such a sorry, pathetic world as this one which mankind has created for itself--much as typical infants, if left to themselves, will eventually soil the cribs in which they lie--that I daily, even hourly, recoil in horror and flee (as best I may) from such monstrosities. Isolation--especially of the thoughts in my mind--the only holy Temple left to me--is my only apparent hope of salvation.
Dear God--only ONCE let them walk along a leaf-strewn path through a Spring or Autumn woodland, and truly SEE the miracles of God which indeed their eyes behold, but which their puny animal minds and souls can never comprehend!
Only ONCE let them see, and comprehend!
November 8, 2002
For the earth was not always like this. When this area was first taken from the native peoples by those of European descent (among whom were many of my own ancestors), this land was literally a realm of magic and wonder, and the native peoples who lived here KNEW this fact. I KNOW it, for I have read some of the first-hand accounts describing it (without hyperbole) as such. It was a land of FEW inhabitants, covered from head to foot by a vast, ancient forest, and filled with sparkling, clear waters, brilliant, many-hued flowers of all description, and populated with a remarkable variety of fauna--all of which, besides existing in its own right, might also have served and benefitted the REASONABLE use of mankind.
But what has European-American mankind done with these treasures--their very inheritance (if it can be called theirs) from God himself? Being dull and unimaginative, and utterly failing to see and understand the miraculous WEALTH all around their very eyes, they have, therefore, only wantonly slaughtered, burned, and destroyed, virtually everywhere they ever went.
DESTROYED?! Theirs is a usage that is so voracious, and so devastatingly complete, that it utterly annihilates in the process of devouring! The hapless mother Earth, it can only be said, they have repeatedly and shamelessly RAPED--all in the name of greed, which of course they justify under the rubric of the "necessity" of their own existence. The shorthand description for all of this boils down to only one small two-word term: profit-making.
All of which is to say (evidently) that the 'business' of profit-making (which they call the business of survival, as if the need for their survival is an excuse for amoral rape and wanton destruction) outweighs all other possible considerations--even the most fundamental ones of the planet itself, or of our brother and sister creations, the animals.
And this is why I have always maintained that the 'businessman' has, ultimately, absolutely no morals whatsoever (and never can have any) beyond the one moral of his own exigency, his own greed. Whatever is necessary to further the ambition of his greed--THAT, and that alone, is his moral purpose.
But even the most dull and unimaginative among us also shares, to some degree, in this terrible tragedy of the soul: for most people, as I have said, willingly relinquish their rich potential (which indeed all were once born with) for a life and environment of the mundane, tame, and mediocre--and think themselves well-off for having done so!--such is the depth of their delusion. And then, by and by, some of them may perchance wonder what is missing in their lives--what(if anything) they may have done wrong.
Suffice it to say that I personally want no part of such a sorry, pathetic world as this one which mankind has created for itself--much as typical infants, if left to themselves, will eventually soil the cribs in which they lie--that I daily, even hourly, recoil in horror and flee (as best I may) from such monstrosities. Isolation--especially of the thoughts in my mind--the only holy Temple left to me--is my only apparent hope of salvation.
Dear God--only ONCE let them walk along a leaf-strewn path through a Spring or Autumn woodland, and truly SEE the miracles of God which indeed their eyes behold, but which their puny animal minds and souls can never comprehend!
Only ONCE let them see, and comprehend!
November 8, 2002
Thomas Mann's views on homosexuality
That mature masculinity reaches out its arm, showing itself to be tender towards masculinity which is softer and more beautiful--
I find in this nothing unnatural, and a great deal that is edifying, a great deal of high humanity.
The moment of youth comes into play here, or a magic that the feelings are prone to confuse with beauty, so that youth, unless disfigured by flaws that cause too much discomfort, will most often be perceived as beauty, even by itself, as its smile unmistakably indicates. It has charm--a manifestation of beauty which by its nature oscillates between the masculine and the feminine. A boy of seventeen is not beautiful in the sense of mature masculinity. Nor is he beautiful in the sense of a simply hypothetical femininity--that would be most unappealing. But undeniably, the charm of youthful beauty always inclines a little towards the feminine in both spirit and form. That lies in its essence, its tender relation towards the world and the world's to it, based on and expressed in its smile. At seventeen, it is true, one can be lovelier than woman or man, lovely like woman and man, lovely in both ways and all ways, pretty and beautiful, to a degree that turns the heads of both men and women.
In Gesammelte Werke, Vol.4, pp. 394-95; quoted in Hayman, op. cit., pp. 390-91.
I find in this nothing unnatural, and a great deal that is edifying, a great deal of high humanity.
Excerpted from a letter of Thomas Mann (1875-1955)
to Carl Maria von Weber, dated July 4, 1920;
quoted in Ronald Hayman,
Thomas Mann:A Biography (1995), page 250.
The moment of youth comes into play here, or a magic that the feelings are prone to confuse with beauty, so that youth, unless disfigured by flaws that cause too much discomfort, will most often be perceived as beauty, even by itself, as its smile unmistakably indicates. It has charm--a manifestation of beauty which by its nature oscillates between the masculine and the feminine. A boy of seventeen is not beautiful in the sense of mature masculinity. Nor is he beautiful in the sense of a simply hypothetical femininity--that would be most unappealing. But undeniably, the charm of youthful beauty always inclines a little towards the feminine in both spirit and form. That lies in its essence, its tender relation towards the world and the world's to it, based on and expressed in its smile. At seventeen, it is true, one can be lovelier than woman or man, lovely like woman and man, lovely in both ways and all ways, pretty and beautiful, to a degree that turns the heads of both men and women.
In Gesammelte Werke, Vol.4, pp. 394-95; quoted in Hayman, op. cit., pp. 390-91.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
To me, the two most profound statements in all holy writings (aside from Jesus' immortal doctrine) are these: "God is love," and "God is light." Taken separately, we may say that if it is true that God is love (the word 'is' being an equal sign), then it is also true that LOVE is GOD. An equally true statement would be that LIGHT is also GOD. And by this I infer that since light is merely frequency-patterns transmitted over space and time, the act of COMMUNICATING (that is to say, using frequency transmissions) must also be synonymous with the words 'love,' 'light,' and 'God.' Taken together, all of the above statements amount to a new (and much more profound) definition of the term 'God.' But how many can accept such a radical departure? And yet, the evidence has been before our very eyes for nearly two thousand years! Has it really taken mankind so very long to thus expand his mindset or world-view?
27 May--7 July, 1997.
How may we define man as being separate from the other forms of life on this planet?
By the degree of his self-awareness, by the degree of his awareness of his environs (and this includes other forms of life), by the degree of his ability to communicate (and the level of complexity of his communications), and by the degree of his ability to manipulate his environment to suit his own needs or wishes.
What defines a 'civilised' society? Or--better yet--how can we determine when and if one particular society is more (or less) 'civilised' than another? This is a question that has plagued many for years, and yet I can't see how such a simple answer could have escaped notice for so long:
A society is more (or less) 'civilised' based upon the level of complexity of its technical know-how, the level of complexity of its social organisation, the level of its manipulation or domination of the environment to suit man's needs or wishes, and by the degree of its dependence (both individually and collectively) upon primitive animal emotion or instinct. In other words, a society becomes more 'civilised' than another when its constituent members (or a safe majority thereof) become more fully HUMAN (and less animal-like) than the members of another society--which may, indeed, be 'civilised' in its own right, only less so than another which finds itself in the evolutionary vanguard of the species. Or what else could Nietzsche have possibly meant?
30 June--7 July, 1997.
27 May--7 July, 1997.
How may we define man as being separate from the other forms of life on this planet?
By the degree of his self-awareness, by the degree of his awareness of his environs (and this includes other forms of life), by the degree of his ability to communicate (and the level of complexity of his communications), and by the degree of his ability to manipulate his environment to suit his own needs or wishes.
What defines a 'civilised' society? Or--better yet--how can we determine when and if one particular society is more (or less) 'civilised' than another? This is a question that has plagued many for years, and yet I can't see how such a simple answer could have escaped notice for so long:
A society is more (or less) 'civilised' based upon the level of complexity of its technical know-how, the level of complexity of its social organisation, the level of its manipulation or domination of the environment to suit man's needs or wishes, and by the degree of its dependence (both individually and collectively) upon primitive animal emotion or instinct. In other words, a society becomes more 'civilised' than another when its constituent members (or a safe majority thereof) become more fully HUMAN (and less animal-like) than the members of another society--which may, indeed, be 'civilised' in its own right, only less so than another which finds itself in the evolutionary vanguard of the species. Or what else could Nietzsche have possibly meant?
30 June--7 July, 1997.
Pantheism== The belief that "God" or "deity" exists everywhere in the universe surrounding us-as, for instance, in the air, the water, the flowers, the animals, human beings, and even the stars themselves.
Mysticism==The belief that it is possible, in this mortal life, to obtain a personal, inward spiritual awareness of, and communion with, the Divine. Example: As in an inward spiritual awakening or experience. Many shallow-minded people would call this "being born again." I say it is much deeper than that--much more profound and far-reaching in its results or consequences.
My theology, while definitely admitting and including the above two statements, really begins and ends with one simple formula, found in the first epistle of St.John (the "Beloved"):
GOD IS LOVE.
Simple logic will then tell us that if "God" (the Divine) is the same thing as "Love", then therefore everything that is "Love" is also "Divine" (or God). All expressions of love, therefore, are expressions of the Divine and of the Divine Will--even those expressions which some narrow-minded and prejudiced persons are pleased to negatively judge and condemn. To love another human being, in a selfless and "Christlike" manner, that is to say, is to give expression to the Divine, to let the Divine flow through one, as it were, thus transforming oneself into a vehicle whereby the Divine becomes expressed in the physical world: a means whereby 'the Word may become made Flesh'.
This, in my opinion, is all that "religion" should ever need to be. "Anything more or less than this cometh of evil."
What are the two greatest commandments? According to Jesus, they are to love God (which is LOVE, right?) with all one's heart, might, mind and strength, and to love one's neighbour as oneself. They are both about love, correct? Basically restated, they are: Love LOVE with your entire being, and love your fellow-man as much as you love yourself. Basically, the idea is (as constantly as is humanly possible) to have a heart filled with Divine Love--toward "deity" and toward one's fellow-beings.
St.Paul said in Romans that a person truly filled with Divine Love will not murder, lie, cheat, steal, or do any other thing to harm his neighbour; or at least, if he should by mistake and due to his frail human nature do something of the sort anyway, he will be sorry therefor, and will honestly try to make amends and avoid repeating the mistake.
Shakespeare's ideal of love was unconditional love:
...love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Ah, no! It is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on Tempests and is never shaken:
It is the Star to ev'ry wandering Bark. ...
(Sonnet No.116)
Which was merely a rephrasing of St.Paul's standard, the famous passage found in First Corinthians, Chapter 13 (Shakespeare obviously knew his Bible):
...Love is patient and kind, love does not envy... love never seeks repayment, nor is provoked to anger; love does not rejoice in harm to others, but rejoices in the truth. LOVE NEVER GIVES UP!
(Emphasis added)
Now I here freely admit that I am a human being, too. It is just as hard for me sometimes to actually live what I am saying here. But I know that I know better. And I do try at all times to conscientiously live this ideal, as should we all. I never said that it was easy, only that it is what we should all be doing (myself included).
"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."
(St.John 15:12-13)
Notice here that Jesus said "friends." He did not say, "wife," or "husband," "father," or "mother," or even "children." No, he said "friends." And I find this very significant. Some would perhaps say that it would be even more significant to voluntarily give up one's life for a total stranger, but that is not really based on conscious, full-knowing LOVE, is it? That would rather be a form of Altruism--somewhat more remote than intimate, personal LOVE, which has full knowledge and awareness of all a friend's faults and failings, and yet is still willing to sacrifice for him.
Mysticism==The belief that it is possible, in this mortal life, to obtain a personal, inward spiritual awareness of, and communion with, the Divine. Example: As in an inward spiritual awakening or experience. Many shallow-minded people would call this "being born again." I say it is much deeper than that--much more profound and far-reaching in its results or consequences.
My theology, while definitely admitting and including the above two statements, really begins and ends with one simple formula, found in the first epistle of St.John (the "Beloved"):
GOD IS LOVE.
Simple logic will then tell us that if "God" (the Divine) is the same thing as "Love", then therefore everything that is "Love" is also "Divine" (or God). All expressions of love, therefore, are expressions of the Divine and of the Divine Will--even those expressions which some narrow-minded and prejudiced persons are pleased to negatively judge and condemn. To love another human being, in a selfless and "Christlike" manner, that is to say, is to give expression to the Divine, to let the Divine flow through one, as it were, thus transforming oneself into a vehicle whereby the Divine becomes expressed in the physical world: a means whereby 'the Word may become made Flesh'.
This, in my opinion, is all that "religion" should ever need to be. "Anything more or less than this cometh of evil."
What are the two greatest commandments? According to Jesus, they are to love God (which is LOVE, right?) with all one's heart, might, mind and strength, and to love one's neighbour as oneself. They are both about love, correct? Basically restated, they are: Love LOVE with your entire being, and love your fellow-man as much as you love yourself. Basically, the idea is (as constantly as is humanly possible) to have a heart filled with Divine Love--toward "deity" and toward one's fellow-beings.
St.Paul said in Romans that a person truly filled with Divine Love will not murder, lie, cheat, steal, or do any other thing to harm his neighbour; or at least, if he should by mistake and due to his frail human nature do something of the sort anyway, he will be sorry therefor, and will honestly try to make amends and avoid repeating the mistake.
Shakespeare's ideal of love was unconditional love:
...love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove.
Ah, no! It is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on Tempests and is never shaken:
It is the Star to ev'ry wandering Bark. ...
(Sonnet No.116)
Which was merely a rephrasing of St.Paul's standard, the famous passage found in First Corinthians, Chapter 13 (Shakespeare obviously knew his Bible):
...Love is patient and kind, love does not envy... love never seeks repayment, nor is provoked to anger; love does not rejoice in harm to others, but rejoices in the truth. LOVE NEVER GIVES UP!
(Emphasis added)
Now I here freely admit that I am a human being, too. It is just as hard for me sometimes to actually live what I am saying here. But I know that I know better. And I do try at all times to conscientiously live this ideal, as should we all. I never said that it was easy, only that it is what we should all be doing (myself included).
"This is my commandment: love one another as I love you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."
(St.John 15:12-13)
Notice here that Jesus said "friends." He did not say, "wife," or "husband," "father," or "mother," or even "children." No, he said "friends." And I find this very significant. Some would perhaps say that it would be even more significant to voluntarily give up one's life for a total stranger, but that is not really based on conscious, full-knowing LOVE, is it? That would rather be a form of Altruism--somewhat more remote than intimate, personal LOVE, which has full knowledge and awareness of all a friend's faults and failings, and yet is still willing to sacrifice for him.
I have the greatest admiration and respect for those few, rare souls who are somehow able to free themselves intellectually, but more especially emotionally, from their surrounding, invasive, and demanding culture. I may even say that it actually excites me almost beyond words to meet and converse with such people. Alas, though, this experience has been mine only too seldom in my lifetime. Many of those few I have actually met who would aspire to this high title of 'genius' or 'non-conformist' have, upon, closer inspection, proven only to have been fraudulent deceits, thus earning only my distasteful scorn.
For those people who are still the mental slaves of their cultures, but who (as in many of the young) still show some youthful strength, idealism, and hope of liberation, I find myself frequently feeling a mixture of pity and an urgent yearning hope that they might succeed in breaking and destroying their mental shackles.
For those who have patently given up the struggle, and hasten to conform themselves in every way possible to their peer culture--that culture with which they unquestioningly and exclusively identify themselves--for those, I say, who are now and likely ever will remain only mindless, safe, obedient, unquestioning drones, I can only feel the lowest form of contempt and disgust, and only the fact that they, too--even they--are still human beings also capable of SUFFERING prevents me from treating them exactly as their behaviour merits: as expendable, interchangeable drones in the human hive. Only the hope that--difficult as it may be for me to imagine at present--they may in some future age exercise that flabby muscle called a 'brain' beyond the automatic and instinctive reactions, and thus expand and redeem themselves, prevents me from this reaction.
26 August, 1994.
For those people who are still the mental slaves of their cultures, but who (as in many of the young) still show some youthful strength, idealism, and hope of liberation, I find myself frequently feeling a mixture of pity and an urgent yearning hope that they might succeed in breaking and destroying their mental shackles.
For those who have patently given up the struggle, and hasten to conform themselves in every way possible to their peer culture--that culture with which they unquestioningly and exclusively identify themselves--for those, I say, who are now and likely ever will remain only mindless, safe, obedient, unquestioning drones, I can only feel the lowest form of contempt and disgust, and only the fact that they, too--even they--are still human beings also capable of SUFFERING prevents me from treating them exactly as their behaviour merits: as expendable, interchangeable drones in the human hive. Only the hope that--difficult as it may be for me to imagine at present--they may in some future age exercise that flabby muscle called a 'brain' beyond the automatic and instinctive reactions, and thus expand and redeem themselves, prevents me from this reaction.
26 August, 1994.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
