Below is an excerpt from Joseph Campbell's 1988 THE INNER REACHES OF OUTER SPACE, pages 90 and 152 (for the footnotes):
In the 1950s R. Gordon Wasson's investigations of the Mexican pre-Columbian mushroom cult (in collaboration with Albert Hofmann, the Swiss chemist renowned for his discovery of LSD in 1943) established beyond question the prominence of hallucinogens in the religious exercises of the whole Mayan-Aztec culture field. The same investigators in conjunction with the classicist, Carl A.P. Ruck, have lately revealed the likelihood of the influence of a hallucinogen (ergot of barley) in the Greek mysteries of Eleusis.[*]
Already in 1968, Wasson published his disclosure of the mysterious Vedic sacramental, Soma, as probably a product of the mushroom AMANITA MUSCARIA (fly agaric)[*] Aldous Huxley's THE DOORS OF PERCEPTION (1954), describing his own visionary experiences under the influence of mescaline, opened the way to a popular appreciation of the ability of hallucinogens to render perceptions of a quasi, or even truly, mystical profundity. There can be no doubt today that through the use of such sacramentals, revelations indistinguishable from some of those reported of yoga have been experienced. Nor can there be any doubt that the source of the revelations is the psyche of the practitioner--the unconscious, that is to say. They are revelations, that is to say further, of the archetypes of the collective unconscious, elementary ideas A PRIORI of the species HOMO SAPIENS SAPIENS, such as may appear spontaneously no matter where. ...
* R. Gordon Wasson, Albert Hofmann, and Carl A.P. Ruck, THE ROAD TO ELEUSIS: UNVEILING THE SECRET OF THE MYSTERIES (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1978).
* R. Gordon Wasson, SOMA: DIVINE MUSHROOM OF IMMORTALITY (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1968).
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Some Wisdom from Edward Fitzgerald
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went.
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--
I came like Water, and like Wind I go." ...
Indeed, indeed, Repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore. ...
What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!
What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent him dross-allayed--
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer--Oh the sorry trade!
Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my Fall to Sin! ...
O threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain,--THIS Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. ...
"Why," said another, "some there are who tell
Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
The luckless Pots he marr'd in making--Pish!
He's a Good Fellow, and 'twill all be well." ...
We are no other than a moving row
Of magic Shadow-shapes that come and go
Round with this Sun-illumined Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the show;
But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays. ...
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust unto Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!
YESTERDAY This Day's Madness did prepare;
TO-MORROW'S Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where. ...
A Book of Verses underneath the Bough;
A Loaf of Bread, a Jug of Wine, and Thou
Beside me, Singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow! ...
Ah, Love--could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of things entire--
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's desire?
Stanzas from "The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam" of Naishapur (Persia),
translated by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), and first published in English in 1859.
_______________________
Sometimes, when thinking of the above poem (and its ideas, with which I heartily agree), I twist and reshape certain of the lines, to make them more particularly applicable to my own personal predilections. I realize that by mentioning this fact, and by displaying my altered version to the general public, I may seem to be making light of the very serious intent (and ideas) of the original. This is not the case. I think one can show both seriousness and a sense of humour simultaneously. Many writers and thinkers before myself have (legitimately) said that it is often a sense of humour which prevents this sad world of ours from becoming unbearable (Lincoln--normally a very somber, serious man--is reported to have said, "I laugh [or tell jokes] because I must not weep ...").
Here are my light-hearted versions of two of the above stanzas (and please forgive them if they happen to offend; they are only meant to be humourous):
Indeed, indeed, repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Nick, and Cock-in-hand
My thread-bare penitence apieces tore. ...
Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and young men
Beset the road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin ...
Well, I will leave this alone for now.
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about; but evermore
Came out by the same door wherein I went.
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--
I came like Water, and like Wind I go." ...
Indeed, indeed, Repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore. ...
What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!
What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
Pure Gold for what he lent him dross-allayed--
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
And cannot answer--Oh the sorry trade!
Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with Predestined Evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my Fall to Sin! ...
O threats of Hell and Hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain,--THIS Life flies;
One thing is certain and the rest is Lies;
The Flower that once has blown for ever dies. ...
"Why," said another, "some there are who tell
Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
The luckless Pots he marr'd in making--Pish!
He's a Good Fellow, and 'twill all be well." ...
We are no other than a moving row
Of magic Shadow-shapes that come and go
Round with this Sun-illumined Lantern held
In Midnight by the Master of the show;
But helpless Pieces of the Game He plays
Upon this Chequer-board of Nights and Days;
Hither and thither moves, and checks, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays. ...
Ah, make the most of what we yet may spend,
Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust unto Dust, and under Dust, to lie,
Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and--sans End!
YESTERDAY This Day's Madness did prepare;
TO-MORROW'S Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where. ...
A Book of Verses underneath the Bough;
A Loaf of Bread, a Jug of Wine, and Thou
Beside me, Singing in the Wilderness--
Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow! ...
Ah, Love--could you and I with Him conspire
To grasp this sorry Scheme of things entire--
Would we not shatter it to bits, and then
Re-mould it nearer to the Heart's desire?
Stanzas from "The Ruba'iyat of Omar Khayyam" of Naishapur (Persia),
translated by Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), and first published in English in 1859.
_______________________
Sometimes, when thinking of the above poem (and its ideas, with which I heartily agree), I twist and reshape certain of the lines, to make them more particularly applicable to my own personal predilections. I realize that by mentioning this fact, and by displaying my altered version to the general public, I may seem to be making light of the very serious intent (and ideas) of the original. This is not the case. I think one can show both seriousness and a sense of humour simultaneously. Many writers and thinkers before myself have (legitimately) said that it is often a sense of humour which prevents this sad world of ours from becoming unbearable (Lincoln--normally a very somber, serious man--is reported to have said, "I laugh [or tell jokes] because I must not weep ...").
Here are my light-hearted versions of two of the above stanzas (and please forgive them if they happen to offend; they are only meant to be humourous):
Indeed, indeed, repentence oft before
I swore--but was I sober when I swore?
And then and then came Nick, and Cock-in-hand
My thread-bare penitence apieces tore. ...
Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and young men
Beset the road I was to wander in,
Thou wilt not with predestined evil round
Enmesh, and then impute my fall to sin ...
Well, I will leave this alone for now.
An Inspiring Thought
On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
LE PETIT PRINCE (1943), Ch.21
Here are a few different translations (which I happen to be aware of)of the above phrase:
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.
(Tr. by Katherine Woods, 1945)
No se ve bien sino con el corazon.
Lo esencial es invisible a los ojos.
(Tr. by Bonifacio del Carril)
Animo tantum bene cernimus.
Quae plurimi sunt, oculis cerni non possunt.
(Tr. by Augustus Haury)
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900-1944)
LE PETIT PRINCE (1943), Ch.21
Here are a few different translations (which I happen to be aware of)of the above phrase:
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly;
what is essential is invisible to the eye.
(Tr. by Katherine Woods, 1945)
No se ve bien sino con el corazon.
Lo esencial es invisible a los ojos.
(Tr. by Bonifacio del Carril)
Animo tantum bene cernimus.
Quae plurimi sunt, oculis cerni non possunt.
(Tr. by Augustus Haury)
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A Response to One Who Commented on this Web-Site
To "Hypnogogic Tripper"--wherever you are (out in cyber-space):
Thanks for the response. Since this reply of mine will have obvious bearing on the general intent of my blog itself, I have decided to include it as an actual posting, for the benefit of any others who may also chance to read it besides yourself.
I appreciate the time you gave to (1) reading what I had written, (2) THINKING about it, and (3) composing an intelligent response. To reciprocate, I will try to respond to your response, more or less line-by-line:
Regarding being true to oneself, and where to draw the line between THAT and one's (so-called) "obligations" to our larger society, I will begin by repeating the famous lines from Shakespeare's Hamlet (they are included, as you may remember, in the posting of my blog which you commented on):
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to ANY man.
(My emphasis)
Yes, you and I obviously agree on the idea of "encourag[ing] the challenging of established ideas and beliefs," and I too have as a goal (or more accurately a wish or desire) to "one day live in a world of open minded individuals" (your words). And I agree with you that this goal CAN be helped by the spreading of ideas--exactly as you and I both appear to be busily engaged in doing.
But, unlike yourself (or at least how you appear to me at first glance), I am more of a pessimist than an optimist--especially as regards our society and the overwhelming majority of 'average' human beings (and 'average' MINDS) which compose it. It would seem that I have less faith in their ability to be rational human beings (AND learn and grow wiser) than do you. Please forgive me, if I read you wrongly.
I agree with the late Erich Fromm (and many another wise soul) who said that this intellectual (and spiritual) advancement of the entire human race--this advancement in the direction of greater use of REASON and COMPASSION and COMMON SENSE, and less reliance upon primitive animal EMOTION and FEAR and HYSTERIA, this advancement upon which we in the vanguard of thinking human beings have pinned all our hopes (and indeed, we really have no other option, unless we simply want to kill ourselves)--this advancement, I say, may take a great deal of time to actually accomplish--even (as Fromm said) "thousands of years." For what we are really talking about here is the actual spiritual, emotional, and intellectual EVOLUTION of the human race itself, and I think we will all have to agree that this will take TIME, that--however much we may wish to the contrary--it simply cannot be accomplished in merely ONE lifetime.
This does not mean, of course, that we should simply GIVE UP trying to improve or remedy the situation--no indeed! The situation--dire as it obviously is--would DEFINITELY benefit from EVERY PERSON'S diligent, conscientious, and unfailing efforts to improve it by every reasonable means.
Now I have to agree with you that if one makes oneself into a 'squeaky wheel' (so to speak), and SQUEAKS TOO LOUDLY, one will eventually get NOTICED; and (in cases of persons such as myself) that is not always a good thing. Believe me, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying. 'Squeaking too loudly' would, in some instances, definitely seem to be self-defeating.
But I am kind of in a 'catch-22' situation: if I don't 'squeak' at all, I most definitely won't get noticed at all--particularly by the sympathetic minds I most wish to attract and with whom I most wish to communicate--nor will I ever be likely to be able (as is my wish) to contribute in any real or substantial way to the changing (and enlightening) of our society. You will undoubtedly see the quandary I'm in. It seems that if I am to contribute AT ALL (and be honest while so doing), I must accept some level of real risk along with the opportunity.
As regards your words concerning the "ESTABLISHMENT" (as you state it), I will say--once again--that I have little faith in it (or them). The 'establishment', or 'status quo' appears to me, and has always appeared to me, as extremely intransigent, extremely 'fossilized' by tradition, custom, or routine, extremely insecure, and extremely PARANOID concerning the loss of their position(s), power, or privilege, as a result. I know I'm not by any means the only one who realizes this. Persons in positions of power or authority have always been (it seems to me) like this, and probably always WILL be like this (unfortunately), until such time as the human race actually evolves away from this aspect of our animal emotional heritage. And (as I have said) that will probably be a very long time in coming. Read, if you have not already done so, Harlan Ellison's brilliant little sci-fi short-story "Repent, Harlequin, Said The Tick-Tock Man." (It is referred to within the pages of my blog.) It contains MUCH of great relevance to this discussion.
Creating a 'space' for oneself, in order to have room in which to live as a free individual (even if only for moments at a time, here and there)--yes, this is certainly possible--at times and with certain necessary restrictions (or precautions), and I have even done this myself on some occasions.
I have quoted before now the powerful words of Whitman, words relevant to this present discussion, but I will do so again now, for your benefit. They might easily be stated as my very CREDO of life itself, as if I myself had written (or thought) them--they inspire me so:
I know I am restless, and make others so;
I know my words are weapons full of danger, full of death,
For I confront peace, security, and all the settled laws, to unsettle them;
I am more resolute because all have denied me
Than I could ever have been had all accepted me;
I heed not and have never heeded either experience, cautions, majorities, nor ridicule,
And the threat of what is call'd Hell is little or nothing to me,
And the lure of what is call'd Heaven is little or nothing to me. ...
(From the poem "As I Lay With My Head In Your Lap Camerado")
My friend, you whoever you are who took the time to write to me with your intelligent thoughts and concerns (which ARE appreciated), I KNOW that because I dare to challenge the 'system' so vocally and brazenly, my days of 'freedom' may in fact be limited. But bear in mind that I am only expressing THOUGHTS, or IDEAS (as you said); ACTING upon those ideas is a different matter entirely, and I do not ever intend to give the 'Powers-That-Be' any legitimate excuse to apprehend or confine me. Of course, they may try to do just that, excuse or none. I REALIZE ALL OF THIS. I have even been through some of it before, in times past. I am very familiar with all of this, though naturally, this does not make it taste any better in my mouth. I feel sometimes like 'Jesus' must have--who, when in the Garden of Gethsemane, said that he wished he could "shrink from that bitter cup" of trial and adversity he knew he was facing, and was about to have to endure (whether he wanted it or not).
As you yourself mentioned (or alluded to), however, I do not necessarily try to INVITE this disaster by intentionally RUBBING my individualism (or specific 'questionable' individual TRAITS) in their very FACES--although it may sometimes SEEM like that, since I am only a human being, too (after all), and also subject to the same emotions of anger and impatience (though perhaps a little less so than those I call into question because of the same). No, I am not always or necessarily TRYING to anger them, or anyone. I am only trying my honest best at all times to simply BE MYSELF, without nod or apology to anyone or anything--no matter how large or threatening or terrifying it may seem (or prove to be). And I realize I may very well end up only making myself a convenient target for those who love their positions of power a little TOO much, and hate individual freedom of speech (especially my own) a little TOO much--especially when it seems to threaten their power and authority, or call into question the 'received' 'Party Line' of thinking and/or behaviour.
I know all of this, and I have accepted all of this. I have thought about all of these things very carefully and repeatedly FOR MANY YEARS NOW. I have simply decided that FOR ME, there is no other way I can actually LIVE in this soul-dominating, mind-stifling world of ours--a world which (as Housman said) "I never made", and still be--as Shakespeare said--"true to myself"--my deepest, truest, most individual, most unique and God-given, SELF--that self which is truly mine and mine alone, and which no man (or combination of men) can EVER take from me, without my consent (which they shall never have).
Thank you again for your words.
Thanks for the response. Since this reply of mine will have obvious bearing on the general intent of my blog itself, I have decided to include it as an actual posting, for the benefit of any others who may also chance to read it besides yourself.
I appreciate the time you gave to (1) reading what I had written, (2) THINKING about it, and (3) composing an intelligent response. To reciprocate, I will try to respond to your response, more or less line-by-line:
Regarding being true to oneself, and where to draw the line between THAT and one's (so-called) "obligations" to our larger society, I will begin by repeating the famous lines from Shakespeare's Hamlet (they are included, as you may remember, in the posting of my blog which you commented on):
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to ANY man.
(My emphasis)
Yes, you and I obviously agree on the idea of "encourag[ing] the challenging of established ideas and beliefs," and I too have as a goal (or more accurately a wish or desire) to "one day live in a world of open minded individuals" (your words). And I agree with you that this goal CAN be helped by the spreading of ideas--exactly as you and I both appear to be busily engaged in doing.
But, unlike yourself (or at least how you appear to me at first glance), I am more of a pessimist than an optimist--especially as regards our society and the overwhelming majority of 'average' human beings (and 'average' MINDS) which compose it. It would seem that I have less faith in their ability to be rational human beings (AND learn and grow wiser) than do you. Please forgive me, if I read you wrongly.
I agree with the late Erich Fromm (and many another wise soul) who said that this intellectual (and spiritual) advancement of the entire human race--this advancement in the direction of greater use of REASON and COMPASSION and COMMON SENSE, and less reliance upon primitive animal EMOTION and FEAR and HYSTERIA, this advancement upon which we in the vanguard of thinking human beings have pinned all our hopes (and indeed, we really have no other option, unless we simply want to kill ourselves)--this advancement, I say, may take a great deal of time to actually accomplish--even (as Fromm said) "thousands of years." For what we are really talking about here is the actual spiritual, emotional, and intellectual EVOLUTION of the human race itself, and I think we will all have to agree that this will take TIME, that--however much we may wish to the contrary--it simply cannot be accomplished in merely ONE lifetime.
This does not mean, of course, that we should simply GIVE UP trying to improve or remedy the situation--no indeed! The situation--dire as it obviously is--would DEFINITELY benefit from EVERY PERSON'S diligent, conscientious, and unfailing efforts to improve it by every reasonable means.
Now I have to agree with you that if one makes oneself into a 'squeaky wheel' (so to speak), and SQUEAKS TOO LOUDLY, one will eventually get NOTICED; and (in cases of persons such as myself) that is not always a good thing. Believe me, I UNDERSTAND what you are saying. 'Squeaking too loudly' would, in some instances, definitely seem to be self-defeating.
But I am kind of in a 'catch-22' situation: if I don't 'squeak' at all, I most definitely won't get noticed at all--particularly by the sympathetic minds I most wish to attract and with whom I most wish to communicate--nor will I ever be likely to be able (as is my wish) to contribute in any real or substantial way to the changing (and enlightening) of our society. You will undoubtedly see the quandary I'm in. It seems that if I am to contribute AT ALL (and be honest while so doing), I must accept some level of real risk along with the opportunity.
As regards your words concerning the "ESTABLISHMENT" (as you state it), I will say--once again--that I have little faith in it (or them). The 'establishment', or 'status quo' appears to me, and has always appeared to me, as extremely intransigent, extremely 'fossilized' by tradition, custom, or routine, extremely insecure, and extremely PARANOID concerning the loss of their position(s), power, or privilege, as a result. I know I'm not by any means the only one who realizes this. Persons in positions of power or authority have always been (it seems to me) like this, and probably always WILL be like this (unfortunately), until such time as the human race actually evolves away from this aspect of our animal emotional heritage. And (as I have said) that will probably be a very long time in coming. Read, if you have not already done so, Harlan Ellison's brilliant little sci-fi short-story "Repent, Harlequin, Said The Tick-Tock Man." (It is referred to within the pages of my blog.) It contains MUCH of great relevance to this discussion.
Creating a 'space' for oneself, in order to have room in which to live as a free individual (even if only for moments at a time, here and there)--yes, this is certainly possible--at times and with certain necessary restrictions (or precautions), and I have even done this myself on some occasions.
I have quoted before now the powerful words of Whitman, words relevant to this present discussion, but I will do so again now, for your benefit. They might easily be stated as my very CREDO of life itself, as if I myself had written (or thought) them--they inspire me so:
I know I am restless, and make others so;
I know my words are weapons full of danger, full of death,
For I confront peace, security, and all the settled laws, to unsettle them;
I am more resolute because all have denied me
Than I could ever have been had all accepted me;
I heed not and have never heeded either experience, cautions, majorities, nor ridicule,
And the threat of what is call'd Hell is little or nothing to me,
And the lure of what is call'd Heaven is little or nothing to me. ...
(From the poem "As I Lay With My Head In Your Lap Camerado")
My friend, you whoever you are who took the time to write to me with your intelligent thoughts and concerns (which ARE appreciated), I KNOW that because I dare to challenge the 'system' so vocally and brazenly, my days of 'freedom' may in fact be limited. But bear in mind that I am only expressing THOUGHTS, or IDEAS (as you said); ACTING upon those ideas is a different matter entirely, and I do not ever intend to give the 'Powers-That-Be' any legitimate excuse to apprehend or confine me. Of course, they may try to do just that, excuse or none. I REALIZE ALL OF THIS. I have even been through some of it before, in times past. I am very familiar with all of this, though naturally, this does not make it taste any better in my mouth. I feel sometimes like 'Jesus' must have--who, when in the Garden of Gethsemane, said that he wished he could "shrink from that bitter cup" of trial and adversity he knew he was facing, and was about to have to endure (whether he wanted it or not).
As you yourself mentioned (or alluded to), however, I do not necessarily try to INVITE this disaster by intentionally RUBBING my individualism (or specific 'questionable' individual TRAITS) in their very FACES--although it may sometimes SEEM like that, since I am only a human being, too (after all), and also subject to the same emotions of anger and impatience (though perhaps a little less so than those I call into question because of the same). No, I am not always or necessarily TRYING to anger them, or anyone. I am only trying my honest best at all times to simply BE MYSELF, without nod or apology to anyone or anything--no matter how large or threatening or terrifying it may seem (or prove to be). And I realize I may very well end up only making myself a convenient target for those who love their positions of power a little TOO much, and hate individual freedom of speech (especially my own) a little TOO much--especially when it seems to threaten their power and authority, or call into question the 'received' 'Party Line' of thinking and/or behaviour.
I know all of this, and I have accepted all of this. I have thought about all of these things very carefully and repeatedly FOR MANY YEARS NOW. I have simply decided that FOR ME, there is no other way I can actually LIVE in this soul-dominating, mind-stifling world of ours--a world which (as Housman said) "I never made", and still be--as Shakespeare said--"true to myself"--my deepest, truest, most individual, most unique and God-given, SELF--that self which is truly mine and mine alone, and which no man (or combination of men) can EVER take from me, without my consent (which they shall never have).
Thank you again for your words.
Saturday, February 19, 2005
The Essence of Ethics or 'Religion'
[We] ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.
If anyone has material possessions,
and sees his brother in need
but has no pity on him,
how can the love of God be in him?
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue [only],
but with ACTIONS and in truth.
1 John 3: 16-18.
If anyone has material possessions,
and sees his brother in need
but has no pity on him,
how can the love of God be in him?
Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue [only],
but with ACTIONS and in truth.
1 John 3: 16-18.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Spiritual Journey: Part Five
A slightly-expanded, edited excerpt from a recent e-mail to a relative of mine--a "born-again Christian" (dated Feb. 8, 2005):
Well, this must be a very short reply. ...
I realize that mine are minority views in almost every case, no matter who or what we are talking about, and I also have to say that I never have had and never will have any intention whatsoever to think and act just like everyone else around me. I am interested in only one, basic, underlying thing: TRUTH. No matter what the cost. I don't care whether other people fear that truth, or whether it appears frightening at first even to me. I only know that if it is true, then I must accept and embrace it, no matter who it might offend or what "orthodoxies it might challenge."
My outlook is ... that of a SCIENTIST, an EMPIRICIST. I accept only what can be demonstrated and shown, or basically PROVEN. Some things, of course, cannot be shown with such firm, final evidence, and so we must in those cases rely rather on educated, reasonable, rational guesses. That for me is definitely the case with "God." 'His' existence cannot easily be shown or proven as I state here, yet I do believe in a "God" (sort of)--not exactly in the same limited and infantile manner as most people in this nation, but definitely as a 'higher power', and the creator and SOURCE of all life, energy, intelligence and matter in the universe. I believe that "God" is so immense as to be almost literally beyond our comprehension and description, though I do believe we come nearest to approaching a proper understanding when we think of 'him' as LOVE and ENERGY, and try to internalize that love and energy by showing the same toward our fellow-creatures--even when and if we feel they may not deserve it. (Who are we mere puny humans, anyway?)
I do NOT believe that "Jesus" ever had any real, physical existence. And I believe there is overwhelming historical and cultural evidence which supports this contention, though many people with their own prior religious agendas will try to belittle (or even deny) those evidences.
Having said that (controversial enough, right?), I will add that I DO believe that "Jesus" has a very real METAPHORICAL existence--both in the form of the body of his "followers" known collectively as "the CHURCH," and in the belief that--following St.Paul's ideas--each of us is capable of becoming a "Christ" individually when we act according to 'his' teachings and example.
I thus see the term "Christian" as being definable in two separate, distinct ways:
The first way is as a literal believer, who agrees that "Jesus" was born in a manger as the Son of God on Earth, lived, preached, performed miracles, died on the cross to save mankind from their sins, rose again on the third day, and will return a second time in glory to rescue the faithful and condemn the ungodly.
The second possible way that one can be a "Christian" (I believe) is to try diligently to LIVE A CHRIST-LIKE LIFE; that is--following the beliefs of St.Paul and the early Christian 'Gnostics'--to literally emulate or follow the example that 'Christ' taught and showed. (I realize I'm speaking here as if he actually existed; I do this only as a way to get the point across--as a teaching tool).
This second path--living a 'Christ-like' life--is, of course, much harder than the first (merely saying one believes). Many people CLAIM to also follow this second path to 'Christianity', but few in fact really do so (alas).
I am most definitely NOT the first type of Christian, but I do try to be the second type (even though I don't believe "Jesus" ever really existed as a distinct person like you or I). I merely believe, rather, in the ethical teachings and the (fictional) example, without believing in the historicity of the man himself. "A Christian Without Christ" is how one writer once referred to it. ...
T.J. White, 8 February, 2005.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Spiritual Journey: Part Four
A Message to All Those Who Call Themselves 'Christians'
(Which Is To Say, 'Followers of Christ'), while at the same time being
A quasi-review of Peter McWilliams' book, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do," in the form of a discussion of Jesus' attitudes and teachings on sexuality, according to his statements and example, as found in the four gospels.
______________________
Jesus advises celibacy for all people, in order that they may attain the 'realm of heaven', which, for Jesus and the early Gnostics, was an inner condition of spiritual grace and union with the Divine; but he advises this particular status ONLY for those who are ABLE to be celibate (Matt. 19:10-12). As McWilliams reminds his readers, the concept of celibacy as a means toward spiritual enlightenment and/or ecstasy was a common one in the ancient Near East, so Jesus' advice here ends up coming across as not so very unusual after all.
Jesus says that those who get married and commit to each other should STAY married and STAY faithful. He says that those who break marriage vows are guilty of adultery, and--according to then-current Jewish law--should be put to death. The aggrieved partner in the broken marriage is then free, he says, to remarry with no stigma of adultery, etc. (Matt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:10-12).
Nonetheless, Jesus STILL refuses to personally condemn persons found to be guilty of adultery: when confronted with a woman caught in the act of adultery, he verbally and formally upheld the validity of the (Jewish) law (for those for whom it was written, and to whom it applied), but in an actual, practical way, he personally IGNORED that law by REFUSING to condemn her in any way, merely telling her, in stirring words of compassion and love, to "go and sin no more"--effectively telling her not to commit adultery again, and thus reiterating his earlier advice to LIVE UP TO all the commitments one makes (John, Chapter 8).
Jesus refused--by all the evidence--to condemn pederasty (or 'boy-love')--and this will surprise and be hotly disputed by many, I know--apparently (once again) so long as true love and commitment are present: we recall the Roman centurion whose boy-slave was deathly ill, and who sent to Jesus so that Jesus might heal the boy. The centurion, by his concern for the lad's health and safety, evinced a special love for him, and showed moreover an especially strong faith in Jesus' ability to heal the boy (so strong that Jesus particularly commented thereupon, saying that not even among the Jews had he seen such strong faith). As McWilliams (once again) points out, the Greek word which Matthew used was PAIS, which of course means 'boy', whereas Luke used the word DOULOS, meaning 'servant' or 'slave'. The intended meaning here is glaringly obvious, to anyone with sufficient knowledge of ordinary facts of life in Roman times: the boy was in fact a 'body-slave', quite common in the Roman world, a slave who attended to all of his master's intimate and personal needs, including (perhaps especially) SEXUAL ones. Living in the Roman world, and aware of Roman mores as well as Jewish ones, Jesus would naturally have been aware of all this when it was staring him in the face; however, he not only refuses to negatively comment on this manifest fact, but (upon demonstration of the centurion's powerful faith) even tacitly APPROVES of (or at least ignores) the loving relationship by healing the boy via long-distance (Matt. 8: 5-13, Luke 7:1-10).
Jesus refuses to condemn either effeminacy or homosexual behavior: he tells his disciples on one occasion to seek out a "man carrying water" to lead them to the chamber where the 'Last Supper' was to be held. This act of 'carrying water' was definitely womens' work, and--for a male, then as now in the ancient and modern Near East--a sure badge of effeminate homosexuality. Since effeminate males were--and still are--outcasts in Middle Eastern society, Jesus' act of telling his disciples to have any association AT ALL with an effeminately homosexual man meant beyond all doubt that Jesus was completely OBLIVIOUS to such socio-sexual differences or concerns. What really mattered to Jesus, as we see, was having an open, pure and contrite heart, full of love and compassion toward one's fellow human beings, and having a faith and humility like that of a child. Jesus apparently never was worried about any of these other matters that we mere childish humans keep on making such a horrified fuss about.
Jesus refused to condemn fornication (sexual relations between unmarried persons): he met a Samaritan woman once at Jacob's Well, who was, as he divined, a five-time divorcee who was then living in a sexual relationship with a man who was--like her--not then married. Jesus not only SPOKE with her (which was against all Jewish and Samaritan customs), and took water from her (which made him ritually unclean according to Jewish law), but he even went so far as to reveal his Messiahship to her (which he had not yet done even for his own disciples), and moreover STAYED with her and her neighbors (all Samaritans) for TWO DAYS. All of this alone--not to mention all the other things Jesus did to infuriate the Pharisaic Jewish leaders--would have made him an unclean outcast to the ritual-and tradition-minded Jews back home in Jerusalem. But was he bothered by it? NO! He merely preached his 'good news' of love and tolerance to them, and went nonchalantly on his way, as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened (John 14: 17-26).
Jesus refused to condemn any other types of social outcasts: he sat at dinner in the house of Levi (also known as Matthew), who was at that time a tax collector, a type of person despised by the Jews as collaborators with the Romans, and therefore traitors (Mark 2:14-17).
He refused to condemn party-goers, revellers, dancers, gluttons, and "wine-bibbers" (alcoholics): plenty of these were in attendance at Levi's house that night. Jesus offers not one word of condemnation against them. In fact, one can even imagine that perhaps Jesus may have betimes joined in the festivities and thus shared with others his joy of living. What we do know for certain, though, is that Jesus forever gives toward all (except money-changers in God's holy Temple ...) only his unconditional love and toleration. He urges everyone to be the best people that they CAN be, but then never, NEVER faults them when and if they may 'fall short'.
Did not Jesus also advise everyone to "love [his] neighbor as [himself]" (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6: 31-37)? "Who is my neighbor?" the lawyer asked him once, trying to entrap him. Jesus answered with the story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Who is our 'neighbor'? Just who is it we are supposed to love with unconditional love? Jesus' surprising answer is, EVERYONE, and ESPECIALLY the person you consider to be "YOUR ENEMY" (Luke 10: 25-37). Did not Jesus also advise everyone to not judge or condemn in others what YOU THINK are their faults, unless you are ready to be condemned for YOUR faults? This is love and tolerance in the very highest degree, and Jesus' life and example amply show that he PRACTICED what he preached.
Jesus' ideal of love was supremely SELFLESS, wholly dedicated love: to love another person to the point of being willing to give your ALL for that person--even your own LIFE if necessary (John 15: 12-13). This was also the standard he set for those who wished to emulate (or be like) him--"As I have loved you, [even so should you] love one another" (ibid.). I find it noteworthy, in passing, that several of the (pederastic) classical Greek authors placed exactly this same value on self-sacrificing love: it was their supreme standard also, even (and especially) in the pederastic and homosexual senses.
In other words, the message here is that it is love--faithfulness and devotion to one's beloved--that really matters, NOT where, how, or toward whom that love may be directed. Remember this--if you take yourself to be a follower of Christ--that Jesus showed himself to be oblivious to those considerations. "How many times must I forgive my neighbor," Jesus was asked? "Seventy times Seven," was the answer. In other words, FOREVER AND EVER (Matt. 18: 21-22).
I would here gently suggest, that by virtue of the almost universal condemnation which so-called "Christians" heap upon the above classes or categories of persons, they may not really know so very much about the message and example of the man they claim to follow. As so many before me have said, they seem rather to be following St. Paul (or the modern version we have of him), and the many medieval and modern churchmen who followed HIM, who grossly perverted and re-interpreted Jesus' peaceful, healing message of love and tolerance to suit their own narrow, repressive 'moral' agenda. Thomas Jefferson was not alone in decrying the resultant loss to the world; many others have echoed his words. Said he:
They [the priests] have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man. ... Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.
(Letters, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814, and to Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822.)
T.J.White, January 23, 1995.
(Which Is To Say, 'Followers of Christ'), while at the same time being
A quasi-review of Peter McWilliams' book, "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do," in the form of a discussion of Jesus' attitudes and teachings on sexuality, according to his statements and example, as found in the four gospels.
______________________
Jesus advises celibacy for all people, in order that they may attain the 'realm of heaven', which, for Jesus and the early Gnostics, was an inner condition of spiritual grace and union with the Divine; but he advises this particular status ONLY for those who are ABLE to be celibate (Matt. 19:10-12). As McWilliams reminds his readers, the concept of celibacy as a means toward spiritual enlightenment and/or ecstasy was a common one in the ancient Near East, so Jesus' advice here ends up coming across as not so very unusual after all.
Jesus says that those who get married and commit to each other should STAY married and STAY faithful. He says that those who break marriage vows are guilty of adultery, and--according to then-current Jewish law--should be put to death. The aggrieved partner in the broken marriage is then free, he says, to remarry with no stigma of adultery, etc. (Matt. 19:3-9, Mark 10:10-12).
Nonetheless, Jesus STILL refuses to personally condemn persons found to be guilty of adultery: when confronted with a woman caught in the act of adultery, he verbally and formally upheld the validity of the (Jewish) law (for those for whom it was written, and to whom it applied), but in an actual, practical way, he personally IGNORED that law by REFUSING to condemn her in any way, merely telling her, in stirring words of compassion and love, to "go and sin no more"--effectively telling her not to commit adultery again, and thus reiterating his earlier advice to LIVE UP TO all the commitments one makes (John, Chapter 8).
Jesus refused--by all the evidence--to condemn pederasty (or 'boy-love')--and this will surprise and be hotly disputed by many, I know--apparently (once again) so long as true love and commitment are present: we recall the Roman centurion whose boy-slave was deathly ill, and who sent to Jesus so that Jesus might heal the boy. The centurion, by his concern for the lad's health and safety, evinced a special love for him, and showed moreover an especially strong faith in Jesus' ability to heal the boy (so strong that Jesus particularly commented thereupon, saying that not even among the Jews had he seen such strong faith). As McWilliams (once again) points out, the Greek word which Matthew used was PAIS, which of course means 'boy', whereas Luke used the word DOULOS, meaning 'servant' or 'slave'. The intended meaning here is glaringly obvious, to anyone with sufficient knowledge of ordinary facts of life in Roman times: the boy was in fact a 'body-slave', quite common in the Roman world, a slave who attended to all of his master's intimate and personal needs, including (perhaps especially) SEXUAL ones. Living in the Roman world, and aware of Roman mores as well as Jewish ones, Jesus would naturally have been aware of all this when it was staring him in the face; however, he not only refuses to negatively comment on this manifest fact, but (upon demonstration of the centurion's powerful faith) even tacitly APPROVES of (or at least ignores) the loving relationship by healing the boy via long-distance (Matt. 8: 5-13, Luke 7:1-10).
Jesus refuses to condemn either effeminacy or homosexual behavior: he tells his disciples on one occasion to seek out a "man carrying water" to lead them to the chamber where the 'Last Supper' was to be held. This act of 'carrying water' was definitely womens' work, and--for a male, then as now in the ancient and modern Near East--a sure badge of effeminate homosexuality. Since effeminate males were--and still are--outcasts in Middle Eastern society, Jesus' act of telling his disciples to have any association AT ALL with an effeminately homosexual man meant beyond all doubt that Jesus was completely OBLIVIOUS to such socio-sexual differences or concerns. What really mattered to Jesus, as we see, was having an open, pure and contrite heart, full of love and compassion toward one's fellow human beings, and having a faith and humility like that of a child. Jesus apparently never was worried about any of these other matters that we mere childish humans keep on making such a horrified fuss about.
Jesus refused to condemn fornication (sexual relations between unmarried persons): he met a Samaritan woman once at Jacob's Well, who was, as he divined, a five-time divorcee who was then living in a sexual relationship with a man who was--like her--not then married. Jesus not only SPOKE with her (which was against all Jewish and Samaritan customs), and took water from her (which made him ritually unclean according to Jewish law), but he even went so far as to reveal his Messiahship to her (which he had not yet done even for his own disciples), and moreover STAYED with her and her neighbors (all Samaritans) for TWO DAYS. All of this alone--not to mention all the other things Jesus did to infuriate the Pharisaic Jewish leaders--would have made him an unclean outcast to the ritual-and tradition-minded Jews back home in Jerusalem. But was he bothered by it? NO! He merely preached his 'good news' of love and tolerance to them, and went nonchalantly on his way, as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened (John 14: 17-26).
Jesus refused to condemn any other types of social outcasts: he sat at dinner in the house of Levi (also known as Matthew), who was at that time a tax collector, a type of person despised by the Jews as collaborators with the Romans, and therefore traitors (Mark 2:14-17).
He refused to condemn party-goers, revellers, dancers, gluttons, and "wine-bibbers" (alcoholics): plenty of these were in attendance at Levi's house that night. Jesus offers not one word of condemnation against them. In fact, one can even imagine that perhaps Jesus may have betimes joined in the festivities and thus shared with others his joy of living. What we do know for certain, though, is that Jesus forever gives toward all (except money-changers in God's holy Temple ...) only his unconditional love and toleration. He urges everyone to be the best people that they CAN be, but then never, NEVER faults them when and if they may 'fall short'.
Did not Jesus also advise everyone to "love [his] neighbor as [himself]" (Matt. 5:43-48, Luke 6: 31-37)? "Who is my neighbor?" the lawyer asked him once, trying to entrap him. Jesus answered with the story of the 'Good Samaritan'. Who is our 'neighbor'? Just who is it we are supposed to love with unconditional love? Jesus' surprising answer is, EVERYONE, and ESPECIALLY the person you consider to be "YOUR ENEMY" (Luke 10: 25-37). Did not Jesus also advise everyone to not judge or condemn in others what YOU THINK are their faults, unless you are ready to be condemned for YOUR faults? This is love and tolerance in the very highest degree, and Jesus' life and example amply show that he PRACTICED what he preached.
Jesus' ideal of love was supremely SELFLESS, wholly dedicated love: to love another person to the point of being willing to give your ALL for that person--even your own LIFE if necessary (John 15: 12-13). This was also the standard he set for those who wished to emulate (or be like) him--"As I have loved you, [even so should you] love one another" (ibid.). I find it noteworthy, in passing, that several of the (pederastic) classical Greek authors placed exactly this same value on self-sacrificing love: it was their supreme standard also, even (and especially) in the pederastic and homosexual senses.
In other words, the message here is that it is love--faithfulness and devotion to one's beloved--that really matters, NOT where, how, or toward whom that love may be directed. Remember this--if you take yourself to be a follower of Christ--that Jesus showed himself to be oblivious to those considerations. "How many times must I forgive my neighbor," Jesus was asked? "Seventy times Seven," was the answer. In other words, FOREVER AND EVER (Matt. 18: 21-22).
I would here gently suggest, that by virtue of the almost universal condemnation which so-called "Christians" heap upon the above classes or categories of persons, they may not really know so very much about the message and example of the man they claim to follow. As so many before me have said, they seem rather to be following St. Paul (or the modern version we have of him), and the many medieval and modern churchmen who followed HIM, who grossly perverted and re-interpreted Jesus' peaceful, healing message of love and tolerance to suit their own narrow, repressive 'moral' agenda. Thomas Jefferson was not alone in decrying the resultant loss to the world; many others have echoed his words. Said he:
They [the priests] have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man. ... Had the doctrines of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian.
(Letters, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814, and to Benjamin Waterhouse, June 26, 1822.)
T.J.White, January 23, 1995.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Spiritual Journey: Part Three
The Nature and Purpose of Existence
The universal mind, which we may term the collective totality of mind or consciousness, reason, intelligence, or GEIST, having desired to experience everything that can be experienced (or imagined), formed or pushed itself into materiality as such (to borrow Cayce's phrase), into the MAYA, or holographic ILLUSION of reality, physicality, and materiality (which even modern quantum physics tells us is the case). This would have been at the moment of the so-called 'Big Bang', and would have been a form of condensation or ordering--at the same time that it was a vast expansion, similar (and this is the only way I can think to describe it, though it is not very accurate) to the manner in which a crystal forms itself out of a matrix or field.
This includes all forms of life and matter--the forms being merely vehicles for experience. This is why life and matter exist in such numberless and diverse forms--to exponentially increase the possibilities for experience, the opportunities to gain knowledge, etc.
Thus we may say that it is eminently reasonable for the conscious universe (as far as it is conscious) to desire to experience EVERYTHING--including seemingly UNREASONABLE emotion and seeming chaos.
The universal mind, being rational, or having an ordered basis or pattern, can also be described as existing both as a whole AND simultaneously as parts or subsets WITHIN the whole. You and I, as seeming separate human beings, are actually merely ordered or organized subsets of the whole: part and parcel of the greater universe or mind (to which we also contribute experience), and yet discretely organized or set apart unto ourselves, so as to increase the chances for gaining experience, which (once again) merely adds to the total experience and knowledge of the whole universe; for by existing as a seeming separate entity, we accrue valuable, unique and individual perspectives or experiences which others may from time to time partly share, but can never wholly duplicate. This is the glory and purpose of individuality as such. And ALL life, ALL matter, contributes to this totality of experience--each entity or form in its own special chosen way, until it has experienced all it can in that particular form, and is thus ready and able to move on to a more advanced form, so as to (again) increase the opportunities for experience. (This is a form of reincarnation.) ALL forms are thus infinitely (or almost infinitely) valuable for purposes of accruing experience.
All are necessary--all are important--even the seemingly insensate bare rock has its story and experience to contribute--as important a part of the jigsaw-puzzle of the whole as anything else, because IT, TOO can BECOME, and because it is--like everything else--a SINE QUA NON: without which nothing would exist or have value.
How else can I attempt to explain this--how else attempt to clarify it? Existence (mind, Geist) is eminently varied and constantly seeks to evolve into new and more advanced forms precisely BECAUSE it is conscious (however subtly or diffusely) AND SEEKS EXPERIENCE--the experience which only this illusion of materiality (space/time) and diversity can afford.
I realize, of course, that this idea seems to presuppose LINEARITY.
But the answer to this is "Eternal Recurrence"; thus, existence may SEEM to be linear, but only because of our present limited perspective: step back from it in your mind, and existence becomes a CIRCLE--it repeats itself. One way to state this which might be more accessible to some is to imagine the universe after the 'Big Bang' expanding to a point of equilibrium, then gradually contracting back in on itself to an infinitesimally small point filled with all the material of the universe; then, when the point has taken more than it can sustain, rebounding back into materiality and space with the glory of a new creation. An endless cycle of this, on so grand a scale that we can scarcely conceive it.
T.J.White, 21 March,1996--21 January, 1999.
The universal mind, which we may term the collective totality of mind or consciousness, reason, intelligence, or GEIST, having desired to experience everything that can be experienced (or imagined), formed or pushed itself into materiality as such (to borrow Cayce's phrase), into the MAYA, or holographic ILLUSION of reality, physicality, and materiality (which even modern quantum physics tells us is the case). This would have been at the moment of the so-called 'Big Bang', and would have been a form of condensation or ordering--at the same time that it was a vast expansion, similar (and this is the only way I can think to describe it, though it is not very accurate) to the manner in which a crystal forms itself out of a matrix or field.
This includes all forms of life and matter--the forms being merely vehicles for experience. This is why life and matter exist in such numberless and diverse forms--to exponentially increase the possibilities for experience, the opportunities to gain knowledge, etc.
Thus we may say that it is eminently reasonable for the conscious universe (as far as it is conscious) to desire to experience EVERYTHING--including seemingly UNREASONABLE emotion and seeming chaos.
The universal mind, being rational, or having an ordered basis or pattern, can also be described as existing both as a whole AND simultaneously as parts or subsets WITHIN the whole. You and I, as seeming separate human beings, are actually merely ordered or organized subsets of the whole: part and parcel of the greater universe or mind (to which we also contribute experience), and yet discretely organized or set apart unto ourselves, so as to increase the chances for gaining experience, which (once again) merely adds to the total experience and knowledge of the whole universe; for by existing as a seeming separate entity, we accrue valuable, unique and individual perspectives or experiences which others may from time to time partly share, but can never wholly duplicate. This is the glory and purpose of individuality as such. And ALL life, ALL matter, contributes to this totality of experience--each entity or form in its own special chosen way, until it has experienced all it can in that particular form, and is thus ready and able to move on to a more advanced form, so as to (again) increase the opportunities for experience. (This is a form of reincarnation.) ALL forms are thus infinitely (or almost infinitely) valuable for purposes of accruing experience.
All are necessary--all are important--even the seemingly insensate bare rock has its story and experience to contribute--as important a part of the jigsaw-puzzle of the whole as anything else, because IT, TOO can BECOME, and because it is--like everything else--a SINE QUA NON: without which nothing would exist or have value.
How else can I attempt to explain this--how else attempt to clarify it? Existence (mind, Geist) is eminently varied and constantly seeks to evolve into new and more advanced forms precisely BECAUSE it is conscious (however subtly or diffusely) AND SEEKS EXPERIENCE--the experience which only this illusion of materiality (space/time) and diversity can afford.
I realize, of course, that this idea seems to presuppose LINEARITY.
But the answer to this is "Eternal Recurrence"; thus, existence may SEEM to be linear, but only because of our present limited perspective: step back from it in your mind, and existence becomes a CIRCLE--it repeats itself. One way to state this which might be more accessible to some is to imagine the universe after the 'Big Bang' expanding to a point of equilibrium, then gradually contracting back in on itself to an infinitesimally small point filled with all the material of the universe; then, when the point has taken more than it can sustain, rebounding back into materiality and space with the glory of a new creation. An endless cycle of this, on so grand a scale that we can scarcely conceive it.
T.J.White, 21 March,1996--21 January, 1999.
Spiritual Journey: Part Two
Thinking Spurred by Reading Freud's CIVILIZATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS
(though the germs of some of the thoughts were present previously)
In the beginning ... was God ... [and] ALL things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I John 1: 1-3
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. ... I form the light, AND CREATE DARKNESS: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:5-7
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8
[emphasis added]
In other words, God is EVERYTHING--IN all and THROUGHOUT all: God is everything, AND EVERYTHING IS GOD. God is good, God is evil; God is light, God is darkness; God is man, woman, AND child, no less than that God is all sentient intelligence and insensate matter, and the glowing stars of the very heavens. God is ALL. God creates every-thing, and since everything is God, everything thus CREATES ITSELF--is its own self-directing agent or force.
We, as semi-sentient agents are not always conscious--in fact, rarely are--of the 'God' within us constantly directing and prodding us. Like the ancient Gnostics said of us, we seem to be asleep to our divine reality. The 'God' within us, if it is not simply the sum total of our entire beings, could just be a matter of our genetic programming, and thus our 'will to live', and our desires for furtherance, growth, happiness, achievement and fulfillment.
Is it not therefore possible, then, that 'evil' and 'good' do not exist at all except as CONCEPTS in the minds of men? Surely the rest of the universe (though still part and parcel of the omnipresence of 'God') is wholly and supremely indifferent to such infantile and purely human classifications.
Humans seem to be inclined to name as 'evil' only that which produces either pain or unhappiness, whether for one person or for many. But is not the larger universe (for all we can tell) indifferent to the occurrences of pain and unhappiness here on this planet? Does not 'evil', then, seem to have as much a place and legitimacy in the realms of real existence and experience as that which human beings call 'good'?
Every thing, then, simply IS--it exists. It is also eternally BECOMING--changing its forms from this one to that one over endless time. Chaos, inconstancy, and flux--ever-repeated within certain patterns sometimes, to be sure--seem to be the supreme laws of the universe (and thus of 'God').
But can it also perhaps be that, in contrast to the apparent chaos and randomness of the universe at large, life as we know it (on this planet) may simply be an example of the universe (and thus 'God') attempting to attain order and law out of chaos, to grow beyond its present confines or state, to become MORE or BETTER than before, to accrete ever-increasing knowledge and experience unto itself, and thus become ever greater than it was before?
This seems (in passing) to be especially true of humankind, but also of all other animal life, and indeed, even of the simplest single-cell organism, which seems somehow compelled to increase, to divide and grow, to REPRODUCE, and, by reproduction, make itself, through taking in nourishment from elsewhere in its universe, greater than it was before.
This, to my mind at least, seems to be what defines 'life' on this planet: a conscious--though conscious at varying levels in different forms of life--attempt at growth and experience, to become more or greater than what one was originally endowed with by the larger universe or 'God'. This would also seem to me to be the best explanation of classic 'evolution': the conscious attempt of all matter and life to expand itself, to grow, to attain power, intelligence, order and knowledge, out of what was previously random chaos.
And it occurs to me that this is what Nietzsche refers to as the "Will to Power" or the "Will to Grow" or the "Will to Be", which he says is THE major motivating force of all life: that paramount desire to grow or accrete, which means that we--and by extension all life--must consume other life forms--other "wills to grow" in order to grow or expand ourselves.
T.J.White, 25 December, 1993--8 February, 1994
(though the germs of some of the thoughts were present previously)
In the beginning ... was God ... [and] ALL things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I John 1: 1-3
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me. ... I form the light, AND CREATE DARKNESS: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:5-7
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 1:8
[emphasis added]
In other words, God is EVERYTHING--IN all and THROUGHOUT all: God is everything, AND EVERYTHING IS GOD. God is good, God is evil; God is light, God is darkness; God is man, woman, AND child, no less than that God is all sentient intelligence and insensate matter, and the glowing stars of the very heavens. God is ALL. God creates every-thing, and since everything is God, everything thus CREATES ITSELF--is its own self-directing agent or force.
We, as semi-sentient agents are not always conscious--in fact, rarely are--of the 'God' within us constantly directing and prodding us. Like the ancient Gnostics said of us, we seem to be asleep to our divine reality. The 'God' within us, if it is not simply the sum total of our entire beings, could just be a matter of our genetic programming, and thus our 'will to live', and our desires for furtherance, growth, happiness, achievement and fulfillment.
Is it not therefore possible, then, that 'evil' and 'good' do not exist at all except as CONCEPTS in the minds of men? Surely the rest of the universe (though still part and parcel of the omnipresence of 'God') is wholly and supremely indifferent to such infantile and purely human classifications.
Humans seem to be inclined to name as 'evil' only that which produces either pain or unhappiness, whether for one person or for many. But is not the larger universe (for all we can tell) indifferent to the occurrences of pain and unhappiness here on this planet? Does not 'evil', then, seem to have as much a place and legitimacy in the realms of real existence and experience as that which human beings call 'good'?
Every thing, then, simply IS--it exists. It is also eternally BECOMING--changing its forms from this one to that one over endless time. Chaos, inconstancy, and flux--ever-repeated within certain patterns sometimes, to be sure--seem to be the supreme laws of the universe (and thus of 'God').
But can it also perhaps be that, in contrast to the apparent chaos and randomness of the universe at large, life as we know it (on this planet) may simply be an example of the universe (and thus 'God') attempting to attain order and law out of chaos, to grow beyond its present confines or state, to become MORE or BETTER than before, to accrete ever-increasing knowledge and experience unto itself, and thus become ever greater than it was before?
This seems (in passing) to be especially true of humankind, but also of all other animal life, and indeed, even of the simplest single-cell organism, which seems somehow compelled to increase, to divide and grow, to REPRODUCE, and, by reproduction, make itself, through taking in nourishment from elsewhere in its universe, greater than it was before.
This, to my mind at least, seems to be what defines 'life' on this planet: a conscious--though conscious at varying levels in different forms of life--attempt at growth and experience, to become more or greater than what one was originally endowed with by the larger universe or 'God'. This would also seem to me to be the best explanation of classic 'evolution': the conscious attempt of all matter and life to expand itself, to grow, to attain power, intelligence, order and knowledge, out of what was previously random chaos.
And it occurs to me that this is what Nietzsche refers to as the "Will to Power" or the "Will to Grow" or the "Will to Be", which he says is THE major motivating force of all life: that paramount desire to grow or accrete, which means that we--and by extension all life--must consume other life forms--other "wills to grow" in order to grow or expand ourselves.
T.J.White, 25 December, 1993--8 February, 1994
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Spiritual Journey: Part One
Here follows a series of writings which may serve to illustrate how my spiritual beliefs have evolved over the years. I am not necessarily posting them in chronological order, however, so to see how my beliefs have actually changed over time, one must pay attention to the date associated with each essay.
The great English biologist T.H. Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous of Brave New World fame) once wrote the following often-quoted paragraph on the idea of the search of man for truth, in a letter of the year 1860 to a friend named Charles Kingsley:
"Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
(Quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts [1980].)
This is exactly what I would also advise for the truth-seeker. I would add, moreover, the following two questions, or lines of thought:
Two Questions, for any honest, open-minded truth-seeker:
One: Are you afraid of the truth? And Two: What if "the truth" turns out to be something entirely different, something you did not at all expect? What if "the truth" turns out to be something that entirely contradicts most of what you previously believed? What then?
Will you accept what you now know (or believe) to be "the truth", letting go of your previously-held and previously-cherished beliefs in the process, or will you rather react with horror and fear by ignoring or turning a blind eye to these new truths--simply so that you can continue to believe all that you have previously believed, in safety and comfort?
What is truth? Jesus was asked this once, whilst being interrogated by Pilate, and we are not told what his answer might have been. The famous medieval German mystic and monk Meister Eckhard (c.1260-1327), however, completed for us what the Gospels left blank. Said he:
"What is truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I would keep to the truth and let God go. (Emphasis added)
He also wrote that
"To get into the core of God at his greatest, one must first get into the core of himself at his least, for no one can know God who has not first known himself."
(Both excerpts quoted in Seldes, op. cit.)
T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.
___________________________
And what is "the Bible"? The "Bible" is nothing other than a scattering of brilliant, priceless diamonds, embedded and hidden in an overwhelming sea of mud and filth; in order to perceive the diamonds, one must first laboriously sift through a great deal of mud, and how many ordinary people ever have the time or mental faculty to do this?
With this thought in mind, I intend over the next few days and weeks to try to help my readers extricate some of the diamonds from the sea of mud, for I have found in my daily journey that occasional pointers from other wise souls who have preceeded me have oftimes been most helpful for myself, and saved me years of seemingly fruitless study-effort on my own part. Hopefully, my own pointers will in turn help others, who, like myself, started out on their own in this search for truth, with precious few guides to point the way.
T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.
___________________________
The poet George Santayana (1863-1952) had written the following, in Soliloquies in England (1922):
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the universe and denies only gods fashioned by man in their own image, to be servants of their human interests; and that even in this denial I am no rude iconoclast, but full of secret sympathy with the impulses of idolators."
(Quoted in Seldes, op. cit., page 369.)
In The Age of Napoleon (1975), Chapter XIX "English Philosophy", pages 395-6, the Durants had the following to say regarding Thomas Paine's 1794 book The Age of Reason:
At the outset Paine gave an unexpected reason why he had written the book: not to detroy religion, but to prevent the decay of its irrational forms [i.e., 'fundamentalist' varieties] from undermining social order, "lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true." And he added, reassuringly: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
Then he drew his Occam's razor:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches ... appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. [This sounds much like Nietzsche a hundred years later. ...]
He admired Christ as "a virtuous and an amiable man," and "the morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind"; but the story of his being fathered by a god was just a variation of a myth common among the pagans [Celsus had argued this point as long ago as the second century!].
Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of ... gods ... The intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds. The story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene [once again, almost Celsus' exact words]; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, ... and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God and no more, and had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited [i.e., 'believed' or 'accepted'] the story.
So the Christian mythology was merely the pagan mythology in a new form.
The trinity of the gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand; the statue of Mary succeeded that of Diane of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian mythologists had saints for everything; the Church had become as crowded with one as the pantheon had been with the other. ... The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet [i.e., 'still'] remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious ['crawling'?? 'ambitious'??] fraud.
Paine then played his searchlight of reason upon the Book of Genesis, and, having no patience with parables, fell heavily upon Eve and the apple. Like Milton, he was fascinated by Satan, the first of all rebels. Here was an angel who, for trying to depose a monarch, had been plunged into hell, there to suffer time without end. Nevertheless he must have escaped those inextinguishable fires now and then, for he had found his way into the Garden of Eden, and could tempt most sinuously; he could promise knowledge to Eve and half the world to Christ. The Christian mythology, Paine marveled, did Satan wondrous honor; it assumed he could compel the Almighty to send his son down to Judea and be crucified to recover for him at least part of a planet obviously in love with Satan; and despite that crucifixion, the Devil still retained all non-Christian realms, and had millions of servitors in Christendom itself.
All this, said our doubting Thomas, was offered us most solemnly, on the word of the Almighty himself, through a series of amanuenses from Moses to Saint Paul. Paine rejected it as a tale fit for nurseries, and for adults too busy with bread and butter, sickness and mortality, to question the promisory notes sold to them by the theologians. To stronger souls he offered a God not fashioned like man, but conceived as the life of the universe.
It is only in the Creation that all of our ideas ... of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language; ... and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.
Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abandon with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called scripture, ... but the Scripture called the Creation.
2 February, 2005.
The great English biologist T.H. Huxley (grandfather of the novelist Aldous of Brave New World fame) once wrote the following often-quoted paragraph on the idea of the search of man for truth, in a letter of the year 1860 to a friend named Charles Kingsley:
"Sit down before a fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
(Quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts [1980].)
This is exactly what I would also advise for the truth-seeker. I would add, moreover, the following two questions, or lines of thought:
Two Questions, for any honest, open-minded truth-seeker:
One: Are you afraid of the truth? And Two: What if "the truth" turns out to be something entirely different, something you did not at all expect? What if "the truth" turns out to be something that entirely contradicts most of what you previously believed? What then?
Will you accept what you now know (or believe) to be "the truth", letting go of your previously-held and previously-cherished beliefs in the process, or will you rather react with horror and fear by ignoring or turning a blind eye to these new truths--simply so that you can continue to believe all that you have previously believed, in safety and comfort?
What is truth? Jesus was asked this once, whilst being interrogated by Pilate, and we are not told what his answer might have been. The famous medieval German mystic and monk Meister Eckhard (c.1260-1327), however, completed for us what the Gospels left blank. Said he:
"What is truth? Truth is something so noble that if God could turn aside from it, I would keep to the truth and let God go. (Emphasis added)
He also wrote that
"To get into the core of God at his greatest, one must first get into the core of himself at his least, for no one can know God who has not first known himself."
(Both excerpts quoted in Seldes, op. cit.)
T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.
___________________________
And what is "the Bible"? The "Bible" is nothing other than a scattering of brilliant, priceless diamonds, embedded and hidden in an overwhelming sea of mud and filth; in order to perceive the diamonds, one must first laboriously sift through a great deal of mud, and how many ordinary people ever have the time or mental faculty to do this?
With this thought in mind, I intend over the next few days and weeks to try to help my readers extricate some of the diamonds from the sea of mud, for I have found in my daily journey that occasional pointers from other wise souls who have preceeded me have oftimes been most helpful for myself, and saved me years of seemingly fruitless study-effort on my own part. Hopefully, my own pointers will in turn help others, who, like myself, started out on their own in this search for truth, with precious few guides to point the way.
T.J.White, 2 February, 2005.
___________________________
The poet George Santayana (1863-1952) had written the following, in Soliloquies in England (1922):
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the universe and denies only gods fashioned by man in their own image, to be servants of their human interests; and that even in this denial I am no rude iconoclast, but full of secret sympathy with the impulses of idolators."
(Quoted in Seldes, op. cit., page 369.)
In The Age of Napoleon (1975), Chapter XIX "English Philosophy", pages 395-6, the Durants had the following to say regarding Thomas Paine's 1794 book The Age of Reason:
At the outset Paine gave an unexpected reason why he had written the book: not to detroy religion, but to prevent the decay of its irrational forms [i.e., 'fundamentalist' varieties] from undermining social order, "lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true." And he added, reassuringly: "I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life."
Then he drew his Occam's razor:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches ... appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. [This sounds much like Nietzsche a hundred years later. ...]
He admired Christ as "a virtuous and an amiable man," and "the morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind"; but the story of his being fathered by a god was just a variation of a myth common among the pagans [Celsus had argued this point as long ago as the second century!].
Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of ... gods ... The intercourse of gods with women was then a matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their accounts, had cohabited with hundreds. The story, therefore, had nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene [once again, almost Celsus' exact words]; it was conformable to the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles, ... and it was those people only that believed it. The Jews, who had kept strictly to the belief of one God and no more, and had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited [i.e., 'believed' or 'accepted'] the story.
So the Christian mythology was merely the pagan mythology in a new form.
The trinity of the gods that then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality, which was about twenty or thirty thousand; the statue of Mary succeeded that of Diane of Ephesus; the deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints. The mythologists had gods for everything; the Christian mythologists had saints for everything; the Church had become as crowded with one as the pantheon had been with the other. ... The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet [i.e., 'still'] remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious ['crawling'?? 'ambitious'??] fraud.
Paine then played his searchlight of reason upon the Book of Genesis, and, having no patience with parables, fell heavily upon Eve and the apple. Like Milton, he was fascinated by Satan, the first of all rebels. Here was an angel who, for trying to depose a monarch, had been plunged into hell, there to suffer time without end. Nevertheless he must have escaped those inextinguishable fires now and then, for he had found his way into the Garden of Eden, and could tempt most sinuously; he could promise knowledge to Eve and half the world to Christ. The Christian mythology, Paine marveled, did Satan wondrous honor; it assumed he could compel the Almighty to send his son down to Judea and be crucified to recover for him at least part of a planet obviously in love with Satan; and despite that crucifixion, the Devil still retained all non-Christian realms, and had millions of servitors in Christendom itself.
All this, said our doubting Thomas, was offered us most solemnly, on the word of the Almighty himself, through a series of amanuenses from Moses to Saint Paul. Paine rejected it as a tale fit for nurseries, and for adults too busy with bread and butter, sickness and mortality, to question the promisory notes sold to them by the theologians. To stronger souls he offered a God not fashioned like man, but conceived as the life of the universe.
It is only in the Creation that all of our ideas ... of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language; ... and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.
Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the Creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abandon with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called scripture, ... but the Scripture called the Creation.
2 February, 2005.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Ionesco on Art as Non-conformity
A creative work of art is, by its very novelty, aggressive; spontaneously aggressive, it strikes out at the public, against the majority; it arouses indignation by its non-conformity, which is, in itself, a form of vindication.
Eugene Ionesco (b.1912),
Rumanian-born French writer,
quoted in Writers in Revolt (1963).
Eugene Ionesco (b.1912),
Rumanian-born French writer,
quoted in Writers in Revolt (1963).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
