The Non-Conformist's Bible

The Lesson of Suffering

2009-09-04T11:38:00.000-07:00

"Whoever hath an ear to hear, let him hear ...":

"Let the disciple then first see the suffering of the man [i.e., himself] through, not his own, but [through] his Master's eyes. He will first only see the mystery, grasp it intellectually; he will not as yet realize it. When he realizes it, there will then be bliss indeed, for he will begin to become the Master Himself. And the Master is the conqueror of Woe--not, however, in the sense of the annihilation of it, but as the one who rejoices in it; for he knows that it is the necessary concomittant of bliss, and that the more pain he suffers in one portion of his nature, the more bliss he experiences in another; the deeper the one[,] the deeper the other, and therewith the intenser becomes his whole nature. His Great Body is learning to respond to greater and greater impulses or "vibrations."

"The consummation is that he becomes capable of experiencing joy in sorrow and sorrow in joy; and thus reaches to the gnosis [i.e., revealed insight] that these are inseparables, and that the solution of the mystery is the power of ever experiencing both[,] simultaneously."

G.R.S. Mead (1863-1933), in Echoes from the Gnosis, "The Gnostic Crucifixion," page 281.

Those who have "ears with which to hear" will note the close parallel here with mythologist Joseph Campbell's oft-quoted maxim, to "participate with joy in the sorrows of the world." The idea is the same as Mead's. But can the world receive this doctrine yet?

Tolerance of Intolerance?

2009-06-16T09:24:00.000-07:00

The only thing one should ever be intolerant of is intolerance itself. And I hold that sort of intolerance to be a good and necessary thing, and will not apologise for it. Tolerance for viewpoints which espouse intolerance and hatred of others is not a good tolerance! Listening to people who will lead one down 'the wrong path' is not conducive to 'intellectual growth', especially when those viewpoints tend only toward hatred, repression, and intolerance.

It is good, naturally, to know what the 'opposition' is thinking (in order to best be able to combat it), and to that extent, it is good to hear 'opposing viewpoints'. One must also consider, as John Stuart Mill rightly pointed out, that it should not be taken for granted that one is always correct in one's opinions, and that--therefore--hearing opposing viewpoints may provide one the "opportunity to exchange truth for error" and so improve one's lot in life. But only an outright moral relativism demands that all opposing viewpoints--however inane or even virulently intolerant--be granted equal weight with more sane viewpoints. This is the really big problem with the American mass media these days. Clearly, some sort of standard, or discretion, is needed, unless we want to forever wander in a morass of "moral relativism." This will only, in the end, allow the evils of hatred and intolerance to triumph and spread their virus-like plague.

I am not 'proclaiming' myself as a 'wise teacher' here ... I am very much still a student in this, as in all areas of learning and growth. Any honest human being should always freely admit that. We should always still be learning and growing. But we should never allow ourselves to 'grow' in the direction of any viewpoint or way of thinking which promotes hatred or intolerance of others (save as discussed above). And any self-proclaimed 'teacher' who tries to 'teach' in the direction of hatred and intolerance of others only leads astray, toward the Gates of Hell. And you may be assured that I myself will not follow!

Intolerant attitudes, and opinions which promote hatred, should, in my opinion, be rooted out as if they were the Plague! This is how Nazism became possible in Germany in the 1930s--because no-one dared to speak up and combat it. All were apparently afraid of seeming to be "intolerant." As shown above, however, there are indeed some opinions about which one should be "intolerant"--those which promote hatred and persecution of others.

I will never be convinced that it is to my advantage--in terms of intellectual growth and learning--to listen to and accept any viewpoint which has as its basis an intolerance and hatred for anyone. Of such viewpoints, I will always hold it right and proper that they should be combated as if they were a deadly alien virus--that one should never give them a moment's room to breathe!

As is so often said (but so rarely learned from), if we fail to learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat them. Think Nazism here. And it is abundantly clear (or should be) that Nazism succeeded because too many otherwise good and decent people remained silent, and did nothing to combat it, thus allowing it to flourish in their midst, like an insidiously hidden cancer, eating away at the social organism. Instead, they should have exercised a proper intolerance of the virulent hatred by rooting it up, root and branch, and consigning it to the funeral-pyre of history's fatal missteps.

As far as concerns each individual human being now alive, there are two basic choices here: one can choose to be on the side of tolerance for those who differ from you, or, one can choose to be intolerant of them. But those who are intolerant of others, and here's the really important part: who also translate that intolerance into official socio-political action and persecution against those who are perceived or thought to be different--they need to be earnestly resisted and fought against!

It all 'boils down' to one very basic legal principle, enshrined in both our Constitution and our entire system of jurisprudence:

Majorities do not have the moral or legal right to dictate to minorities!

John Stuart Mill, already mentioned above, wrote passionately and eloquently against what he termed the "tyranny of the majority," arguing that majorities absolutely do not have the moral or legal right to impose their will on minorities, simply by virtue of superior numbers, or by any self-congratulatory (and often false) sense of moral superiority. Mill's ideas have been enormously influential, and he is often quoted by those among us who love human liberty.

Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom understood the idea of human liberty so well, would very much understand what I am saying here, and would certainly agree with it in principle.

In a pure democracy (otherwise known as 'mob rule'), yes--majorities do rule, and do dictate their will to unpopular minorities. But this nation is not, and never has been, a pure democracy. This is why we are (ostensibly) a nation of laws--not a nation of majority rule. We are a Republic, a representative democracy, not a pure Democracy. In this nation, we have--in theory at least--the rule of law, not the rule of majorities. Both our laws, as well as our elected representatives, execute the will of the people. But this system has crucially-important safeguards built in, to ensure that minorities and their rights do not get trampled upon.

Majorities, can, after all, sometimes be dead wrong, and even very harmful of the minorities they choose to persecute, torture, and even put to death. Think Nazism again here. It is our hallowed Constitution and system of laws which are (again, ostensibly) designed to protect minorities, not only from the tyranny of the government, but from the social tyranny of majorities within society. The founders of this nation, wise and far-seeing as they were, specifically wrote protections into our Constitution and system of laws to protect every single individual human being among us in the free exercise of conscience (provided no other person is harmed in the process)--even though, and especially if, that conscience should prove to be unfashionable with those majorities then in actual power.

It is absolutely a venomous and pernicious lie that majorities have any legal or moral right in this nation, under color of law, to impose their will upon dissenting minorities. If that is the case, then we are no longer the freedom-loving United States of America, and must instead call ourselves by some different name--such as "the United Fascist States of America." I am serious here. I am not joking.

Famous Quotes from Aldous Huxley

2008-06-08T12:14:00.000-07:00

Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects... totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have by the most eloquent denunciations. Aldous Huxley

A child-like man is not a man whose development has been arrested; on the contrary, he is a man who has given himself a chance of continuing to develop long after most adults have muffled themselves in the cocoon of middle-aged habit and convention. Aldous Huxley

Chastity - the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions. Aldous Huxley

Children are remarkable for their intelligence and ardor, for their curiosity, their intolerance of shams, the clarity and ruthlessness of their vision. Aldous Huxley

De Sade is the one completely consistent and thoroughgoing revolutionary of history. Aldous Huxley

From their experience or from the recorded experience of others (history), men learn only what their passions and their metaphysical prejudices allow them to learn. Aldous Huxley

I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself. Aldous Huxley

I'm afraid of losing my obscurity. Genuineness only thrives in the dark. Like celery. Aldous Huxley

Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power. Aldous Huxley

If human beings were shown what they're really like, they'd either kill one another as vermin, or hang themselves. Aldous Huxley

It is a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'try to be a little kinder.' Aldous Huxley

Maybe this world is another planet's hell. Aldous Huxley

My father considered a walk among the mountains as the equivalent of churchgoing. Aldous Huxley

Perhaps it's good for one to suffer. Can an artist do anything if he's happy? Would he ever want to do anything? What is art, after all, but a protest against the horrible inclemency of life? Aldous Huxley

Science has explained nothing; the more we know the more fantastic the world becomes and the profounder the surrounding darkness. Aldous Huxley

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. Aldous Huxley

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach. Aldous Huxley

The finest works of art are precious, among other reasons, because they make it possible for us to know, if only imperfectly and for a little while, what it actually feels like to think subtly and feel nobly. Aldous Huxley

The impulse to cruelty is, in many people, almost as violent as the impulse to sexual love - almost as violent and much more mischievous. Aldous Huxley

The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude. Aldous Huxley

The most shocking fact about war is that its victims and its instruments are individual human beings, and that these individual beings are condemned by the monstrous conventions of politics to murder or be murdered in quarrels not their own. Aldous Huxley

The most valuable of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it has to be done, whether you like it or not. Aldous Huxley

The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human. Aldous Huxley

The secret of genius is to carry the spirit of the child into old age, which mean never losing your enthusiasm. Aldous Huxley

The vast majority of human beings dislike and even actually dread all notions with which they are not familiar... Hence it comes about that at their first appearance innovators have generally been persecuted, and always derided as fools and madmen. Aldous Huxley

There are things known and there are things unknown, and in between are the doors of perception. Aldous Huxley

There's only one effectively redemptive sacrifice, the sacrifice of self-will to make room for the knowledge of God. Aldous Huxley

We are all geniuses up to the age of ten. Aldous Huxley

You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

From this website:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/aldous_huxley.html

“How Living in Africa Changed My Life”

2008-06-08T12:03:00.001-07:00

Between March 1984 and July 1985, I was privileged to live and work in the Republic of South Africa. My purpose for being there was missionary work, and although I did indeed engage in a great deal of that type of labour, I feel that I gained more from my experience of living there in other ways than would be apparent, were I to mention only that one activity. My brief time in South Africa was one of the two most profoundly life-changing experiences for me in all my life. I hope I can show how and why this was the case.

Although in most respects South Africa is just as modern a country as the United States or Europe, with all the industries, factories, gold and diamond mines, suburbs, cities, towns, shopping malls, interstate highways, railways, airports, and other amenities (and headaches) which modern civilized society offers, and although I there met many wonderful and selfless people, who (unasked) helped me in many ways, it was not so much these aspects that proved to be significantly life-changing for me. Rather, it was my several excursions into the wild “bushveld” (or wilderness) that proved to impact me the most.

Africa is arguably one of the most ancient, primitive and starkly beautiful landscapes on earth, and South Africa in particular does indeed have many wilderness parks and game preserves in which to observe much of that natural beauty—some of them quite large.

(above) A spectacular view of the Drakensberg Mountains.

Together with two friends, I visited several of the bigger game preserves--including South Africa's famous Kruger National Park, and the privately-owned Timbavati Game Preserve next to it. I will describe these two momentarily. First, I want to mention Mountain Sanctuary Park, which was one of the grandest and most beautiful of the wilderness parks I saw. This place even has a website, at http://www.mountain-sanctuary.co.za/ . I would recommend looking into their site, as it contains many beautiful and representative photographs of the place.
.

We were lucky enough to visit Mountain Sanctuary Park on two separate occasions. This park has a lengthy mountain ridge which runs through most of it--part of the vast Magaliesberg mountain range, which stretches on literally for miles and miles. On the side of this mountain there were no trees of any significance, scattered troops of baboons which dined on small citrus-type fruits, and herds of tiny deer-like gazelles, and the mountain ridge was cut by numerous ravines, gorges, and gullies--some of which were quite large and hundreds of meters deep.

Unusual rock formation on the side of the Magaliesberg mountain ridge at Mountain Sanctuary Park.

On both occasions, starting early in the morning, before the sun had become too hot, my friends and I slowly hiked up to the top of the mountain ridge, where the ruins of a fort from the Anglo-Boer War still sat on the edge of a cliff. There had been an important battle during that war not far from here, we were told. Here, the mountain-ridge dropped away to the vast valley below, providing a spectacular view for a distance of many miles. While we were sitting on the top of that mountain-ridge, perched on the ruins of that fort, the wind coming up from the valley below was furious, and, despite the otherwise hot day, it kept us considerably cooled off for a good while. It was a refreshing change from the hot, thirsty trek up the mountainside, and one we were loath to leave behind us.

Eventually, we slowly clambered back down the mountainside, and at one point came upon one of those many gorges that cut through the ridge. From the top, it looked far too deep to climb down into, but my friend Abe (a native of the place) insisted there was indeed a way down into it.

One of my American companions sitting on the edge of the gorge, before we began our precipitous descent. This gorge was actually much deeper than is apparent here: the bottom is not even visible in this photo.

This is the bottom of that same gorge--a photo I took while leaning over that same boulder my friend had been sitting on just a moment before, and pointing the camera straight down. About all that can be seen here are the tops of the trees below. Very soon, we would be underneath those trees, in a very different world.

So we followed him, and eventually, we were in fact at the bottom of the ravine.

Here, a completely different world existed. The top of the ravine (the side of the mountain) was barren, dry, and wind-swept; here, all was tree-shaded, dripping with small waterfalls and mosses hanging down the sides of the cliffs,

At the bottom of the ravine, looking back up at a small dripping waterfall, cascading slowly over moss-shrouded rock walls.

every now and then a raging torrent of a small river, or small series of waterfalls,

giant tree ferns everywhere growing in the green gloom of the semi-tropical forest canopy, and huge boulders everywhere littering the floor of the canyons.

I tried to imagine what it must have been like when those boulders had dislodged themselves from the cliff tops, and come crashing down to the canyon floor, and was glad I was never there to witness the event! This landscape was so wild, primitive, and ancient, and on so unimaginably vast a scale, that I honestly kept expecting to look up and see dinosaurs lumbering past. It was a magical land of gods and giants, and there I was, a solitary pygmy, picking my way like a small ant over the giant boulders and down the cascading waterfalls. I was small enough to be stamped out forever if even one of those boulders had decided to come crashing down again!

At one point, while traversing the canyon floor, we came upon a huge boulder, completely blocking our path. It was easily the biggest one we had seen yet, and was almost the size of a small house. There was nothing but smooth cliff-walls on either side of it. It was indeed possible to climb up the near side of the boulder, but once we had done so, we discovered that the only way to proceed past it (or so we thought) was to jump straight down about twenty meters (about 30-40 feet) into a deep, black pool of crystal-clear water! Our friend Abe laughingly told us that this particular pool (and jumping point) was called "Help Help," and we could easily see why!

After letting us worry about our predicament for a few minutes, Abe then told us (laughingly, again) that there was, in fact, a way around the dreaded pool and jump. This other way involved tip-toeing on a tiny ledge along the cliff-wall, literally hugging the cliff-wall itself, as one slowly stepped past the boulder and deep pool, one tiny, fearful step at a time (and about 30 feet above the pool). If one of us had sneezed, we probably would have fallen down into the pool below. I assure you, that ledge we were walking along was only about four inches wide, and there was very little in the way of rock edges to grasp, so as to keep from falling backward. It was harrowing.

We were never so relieved as when we finally had made it down past the boulder and pool, and were finally able to relax, take our shoes and socks off, and wade into the shallow end of the deep pool. And boy, was that water ever frigid, even in the hot African Summer! I was very glad then that we hadn't attempted the jump into the pool after all.
.

I did indeed see a lot of wildlife. But Africa is not quite the place that most Americans expect from watching National Geographic. Wildlife does indeed exist there in great numbers, but it does so only in the larger game preserves, and one often has to travel great distances to see them. Elsewhere in the country are only endless fields, farmland, suburbs, gold and diamond mines, many small towns and occasionally larger cities.

Timbavati Game Preserve, which I mentioned earlier, is where, a few years ago, a minor strain of naturally "white" lions (previously only legendary) made their appearance (see the website http://www.responsibletravel.com/Copy/Copy101740.htm), and the Kruger National Park is the largest game preserve in South Africa (and one of the largest in the world). There are several websites mentioning the Kruger National Park.

The Kruger National Park is so big that you can literally drive around in it all day long and never see a single sign of human life (other than the dirt track in front of you and behind you). It is about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island together. It was like being trapped in an episode of Discovery Channel, or National Geographic. I saw plenty of gazelle, giraffe, wildebeest, hippos, lions, elephants, zebras, antelope and springbuck, plus baboons, tree monkeys, wild dogs, hyenas, etc.

That huge diversity of God's creatures there, plus the deafening silence constantly surrounding us, and the incredible sense of desolate isolation, left me overwhelmed with emotion, and thinking that I had at last found the fabled "Garden of Eden" itself. Such a sense of peace and tranquility exists out there! I honestly did not want to return to the States--to my own home, and family! What sort of experience is it that can produce an effect like that?

That sensation of utter and profound isolation is what so significantly changed my life. I was only there in that game park for one day, but that one day, and the raw experiences it contained, was sufficient to forever alter the course of my life and my thinking.

You who have always lived in a house, in a city or suburb, and have never spent more than an hour or two literally a hundred miles from the nearest other human beings (or even sign of human life), have no idea how overwhelming it can be, to experience isolation like that. Persons shipwrecked on a desert island, like Robinson Crusoe, lonely explorers in the vast Sahara, or perhaps scientists in Antarctica, or oil-drillers in Siberia, will have had such an experience; but not many people normally have experiences like that. This is why, when they do occur, they are life-changing experiences.

I grasp at words, trying to describe what is was like for me, standing there that day on the hot, dusty African plain, with nothing for literally a hundred miles around, except my two friends, one automobile, one dry, dusty dirt road, and endless miles of grass, bushes, scattered thorn-trees, occasional wild animals, and endless blue sky and puffy white clouds. I struggle, and cannot seem to find the right words to convey just how awesome an experience it was, and how reverently and profoundly moved by it I was. Such overwhelming peace, and tranquility! One could literally sit there all day long, and never hear another sound besides the breeze occasionally rustling through the tall grasses! It is absolutely impossible to imagine what this actually feels like, if one has never experienced it. I felt like we were literally the only people alive and walking on the entire planet—so far away did all other life seem. This gives one a completely new perspective on life, believe me!

Herd of gazelles, Kruger National Park. This photo was taken by my friend Abe Snyman, as I stood there and watched this very scene.

I suppose a person who is easily bored would probably be driven to the edge of insanity by isolation like that. I could easily envision a possibility like that. But not for me: it was a “balm of Gilead” to my soul. And I have always wanted to go back there and experience it just one more time.

.
Needless to say, after having had such a profound experience as that, and coming back to everyday ‘civilization,’ even seeing New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, and just about every other sight and experience that America has to offer, I still have felt somewhat cheated—because I was always conscious that something greater still lay elsewhere, and I knew that I had been there, and experienced it firsthand. I suppose the astronauts who walked on the moon must have felt similarly, after they had returned to their usual, routine lives in “suburbia,” commuting to their ‘jobs’ every morning, and I do not wonder when I recall that several of them are said to have experienced severe psychological problems of ‘readjustment’ upon their return. Only those who have had similarly profound, life-altering experiences can know what I mean here. Had I the time, and my listeners the patience, I think I could probably write a whole book about what I saw and experienced there. Hopefully, this brief essay will suffice for the moment.

The World as “Illusion”

2008-06-08T11:51:00.000-07:00

The great mythologist and teacher Joseph Campbell (of course) constantly reminded his hearers and readers of the Hindu/Buddhist idea that everything in this world is maya, or illusion.

Many of the ancient ‘Gnostics’ also upheld this same idea, asserting that the only true 'reality' lay in the unseen realm of spirit (and not in this existence), and they were constantly preaching that we should never become too attached to this transitory, illusory (and even deceitful) existence we call "life".

Some of them even went so far as to literally mortify the flesh, or retreat from worldly concerns such as matrimony, sexuality, social, or political duties or engagements, often seeking instead a literal flight from sensual "temptations" to the ascetic world of monasticism. (I feel that this is a profound error on their part, however.)

To illustrate the widely-divergent field of sects making up what we now call "Gnosticism", however, there were a few "Gnostic" sects which (although they attached equal unimportance to matters of the "flesh"), nonetheless insisted that this "illusory" physical existence was so supremely unimportant (compared with the heavenly realm to follow) that it did not matter in the least what one did with the body, or with its natural urges. These libertine "Gnostics", then (in stark contrast to the ascetics), allowed themselves (and taught their disciples) to engage in all sorts of socio-sexual extremes--even bordering sometimes on what some would call 'gross perversions'. ... But again, it is important to remember that these libertine "Gnostics" (nominally "Christian", for the most part, though they were almost universally excoriated and shunned by other, more traditional, or 'mainstream' "Christians"), and among whom were the so-called "Carpocratians", always insisted that the flesh was so supremely unimportant--as long as one remembered where one's true priorities lay (with the heavenly realm of spirit)--that it did not at all matter what one did with the physical body . This is how the evidently homosexual rituals of the "Carpocratians" were possible (within the general rubric of "Christianity", too!).

To move into a modern times, however, quantum physics says essentially the same thing about what we call physical "reality"--that it's all really nothing more than electromagnetic frequency wave-patterns interpreted by our brains. Thus we see that 'science' and 'religion' (as many are noticing nowadays) are indeed gradually converging.

These ideas are really quite simple. The only mistake is reading too much into them. One does not need to search and search for deeper and deeper meanings there. The only message is right there in 'plain English', right on the surface of the words.

What I really mean is more or less exactly what I say (though I admit I am perhaps not the best one to be trying to explain these things): the physical world we see around us constantly (and which we assume is "real") is actually only an illusion created by our brains, when our brains convert the electromagnetic wave-patterns (or frequency-patterns of wave radiation) into meaningful signals. These meaningful signals then appear to our eyes as "sight", to our ears as "sound", and to our fingers and other body parts as "touch". The same is true of the other senses.

But we must remember (as both quantum physics and the 'mystical' traditions of spirituality teach) that that "reality" perceived by our senses is actually no more "real" than a moonbeam. In other words, these "keys" I am typing on in order to produce words (on this computer), although they "feel" solid to my finger-tips, are actually not what I (normally) think they are--they are actually nothing more than another form of electromagnetic wave radiation, or frequency-patterns, which exert enough of a force field of resistance to my finger-tips, that my brain perceives them as a "solid". But my physical "body" is also nothing more than various patterns of electromagnetic wave energy! So essentially, what is going on is that one organised set of frequency-patterns (my brain) thinks it is coming into contact with other frequency-patterns (the keyboard keys). But what is actually happening is nothing of the sort--only one force-field of electromagnetic energy "bumping" into another!

What may help you to understand this is to visualise two magnets in your hands. Now, turn them around so that the same poles are facing each other. Then try to push them toward each other, and make them touch. You can't do it, can you? This is because the force-fields are strong enough to prevent it. Those force-fields generated by those magnets feel almost solid, don't they? And yet we know that they aren't; the only thing you are bumping up against there is simply a very strong electromagnetic force-field. Well, this is exactly and precisely why so-called "solid" objects seem solid to us. But they are actually no more "solid" than the AIR near the pole of a magnet. Remember that the vast majority of every atom is actually only empty space! But it is a space filled with a very strong force-field of energy. Thus, if you multiply those space-filled atoms exponentially, enough to produce a human being, you still have an entity that is "actually" overwhelmingly empty space! So why then do we "seem" to possess "solid" bodies? Quite simply, because of the very strong electromagnetic force fields--just as in the case of the magnets!

I am here only referring to how our brains (and not our conscious minds) interpret electromagnetic wave radiation (frequency-patterns), and convert them into the meaningful images, sounds, tastes, textures, and smells we call our ordinary "physical" existence or world.

Do you begin to see now how this so-called "physical" world is really only an"illusion" cooked up by our senses (and brains)? The only true "reality" is nothing but organised patterns of electromagnetic wave radiation (frequency-patterns). ...

This is why the Hindus, Buddhists, Gnostics, and other Mystics are absolutely right when they say that this physical world is only maya, or "illusion".

To put the main thrust of quantum physics into other (and simpler) words, what we know as ordinary everyday existence in this world (aka "life") is really nothing more than organised patterns of electromagnetic energy-- all of it! If one dwells on this stupendous thought for more than just a brief moment, the implications are literally staggering! Indeed, one could even say that the implications are so staggering as to present a serious problem relative to our existential security (or peace of mind).

Certainly, these facts call into question just about any form of traditional 'religion'! The question then presents itself to our minds: what is one to do in the face of such troubling facts? How is one supposed to be able to carry on a more or less 'normal' day-to-day existence, when all the time, one is faced with this stunning realisation that nothing that one's senses reveals to us is actually 'real' (in the sense we always thought it was 'real')?

Well, I cannot speak for other people on this matter--how to comfortably live with these unsettling facts; I can only offer my own personal strategy for handling them. I also cannot claim that my strategy will work for everyone; only that thus far, it seems to be working rather well for myself. ...

Very simply, although I am profoundly aware of this new 'reality' regarding this world of appearances (what Schopenhauer called "Vorstellung"), I try to take occasional 'breaks' from dwelling thereupon; in other words, I try to make room in my life for other activities and engagements which will allow me to periodically "re-engage" with this apparently 'real' world around me. This is almost akin to Campbell's quotation of the Buddhists' advice to "participate with joy in the sorrows of the world". In other words, I continue to work (when able), go shopping, complain about taxes, bad government, arthritis, back pain, and to study the whole plethora of subjects I always have, just as before, as if nothing had changed.

And (truth be known), it is actually quite easy to do this! (By this, I mean fall back into the old habits of thinking.) In fact, for the untrained, such 'slipping back' into the old, comfortable routines and habits of 'normal' thinking is far too easy--uncomfortably easy even. Indeed, post-modern 'Gnostics' such as Timothy Freke say that such 'back-slippage' (especially in the untrained) is a negative end to be avoided at all costs. They apparently would have the new 'reality' (which is actually a non-reality) constantly and uncomfortably burned into everyone’s consciousness--even if it disturbs emotional peace and stability, and leaves persons distraught and unsettled to the point of insanity (or so it would seem). ...

I feel that the lessons of the new 'reality' (and their spiritual implications) need not be pursued quite that rigorously, in order to be effective, and still produce a profound new awareness, and profound life-changes. Of course (as I said), mine is only one opinion; others may (and have the right to) differ. ...

(6 December, 2007)

Why I Disagree With ‘Mormonism’

2008-06-08T11:25:00.000-07:00

Those Mormons love their 'meetings' (and by that, I'm not referring to 'worship services'). When I say 'meetings', I mean the word in the sense of business 'meetings'. I have said before that they should be called the "Church of the Latter-Day Businessmen" Truly! They preach what can only be called the "Gospel of Wealth" (to borrow the phrase from Andrew Carnegie): they think that being "successful" in life (a word they use an awful lot!) is the same thing as being "blessed," and that the more "successful" a person is (in terms of making money), the more "blessed" he or she must be! Now, how twisted is that? That's the way the primitive-minded Hebrews of Old Testament times thought! ("The more goats and cattle I have, the more wives, concubines, and children I have, the more 'God' has showed favour upon me ...") Good God! To think that these 'Mormons' still think like that! To think that the human race has not budged (or evolved) one inch in all those thousands of years! What a sad, sad commentary on the human race!

Erstwhile 'Mormon' presidential candidate Mitt Romney (the former Governor of Massachussetts) wanted people to think he was good presidential material because he is a "successful leader" and businessman (his exact words). He is certainly every inch a 'Mormon', just like all the rest of them!

The truth of the matter is, that we are constantly being "blessed" by God! Just being alive here on this earth is the greatest blessing of all. And we are being blessed by God, even when we think we are not! As Thoreau, Blake, and Whitman would have all been quick to agree, it is a blessing even to be poverty-stricken! Think about that ... Yet it teaches humility, and compassion for all living beings, doesn't it? Hard to learn those lessons if one is filthy rich ... And as Thoreau pointed out, being poverty-stricken is also a blessing, in the sense that we then don't ever have the chance to become unduly attached to material possessions; instead, we learn to love other people (instead of desiring and growing jealous over our "possessions"). Didn't "Jesus" say that "where your treasure is, there your heart is also"? Yes, of course "he" did. ...

And--though we may not recognise it as such--we are even being 'blessed' when disaster or tragedy visits its awful, heavy hand upon us. ... Think about that! Yet, if you will really think about it, and work it out in your mind, you will realise I am speaking the truth here. "Disasters" and "tragedies" teach us to appreciate the good times. We could never learn to value the "good", if we did not also experience the "bad" (right?) So even the "bad" times are also blessings for us--"blessings in disguise". Much, much more could be said on this subject.

And the 'Mormons' also place far too much emphasis on 'leaders'! Everyone in that church aspires to be a 'leader'! Just how many 'leaders' can there be, before everyone is aspiring to be a 'leader', and no-one is left to follow? "Jesus" had choice words to say about people who desire preeminence among their fellow-men, didn't he? Rather than desiring that human beings should live in a hierarchical, stratified, or layered society (and helping to bring such a thing about), shouldn't we rather strive to serve one another, humbly, with "broken hearts and contrite spirits"? Didn't "Jesus" make this point (beautifully, simply, and elegantly) when he stripped naked in front of his disciples, and washed their feet (which was considered filthy, demeaning work back then)? Of course he did.

The 'Mormons' claim to believe in a doctrine which they call "eternal progression," by which they mean that human beings should be continually evolving and expanding their comprehension of knowledge; but what is actually the case is that the 'Mormons' literally follow the contrary doctrine, which could aptly be referred to as 'eternally staying put right where they are,' thank you very much! Try attending one of their Sunday-School classes. And then do the same for about six or seven Sundays in succession. They merely repeat their standard, basic doctrines--the same doctrines that are taught to "beginners in the faith"--as if even the seasoned church members of forty years and more have learned absolutely nothing in all that time! This is sad, to say the least.

I myself, when I was a child growing up in the 'Mormon' faith, took that "eternal progression" doctrine literally, and went out into the world and began learning things. Unlike the vast percentage of 'Mormons' (and Christians), I did not shy away from an uncomfortable fact when it happened to contradict what I already believed (or thought was the case). To my way of thinking, if a proposition was demonstrably true and correct, why then, I had better get myself accustomed to accepting it.

This process eventually led me to turning my 'Mormon' beliefs completely inside-out, and demonstrating them (and most 'Christian' beliefs) to be based solely on unwarranted and unexamined assumptions--assumptions which when once thoroughly examined and exposed to the light and air, turned out to be sadly false. I say sadly, because it was at first extremely disconcerting to have my world-view turned upside-down, and inside-out. This is because (contrary to what some poeple may think) I am in fact a thinking, feeling human being just like the rest in most respects, and that entails a certain emotional/psychological dislocation when one's existential security happens to be seriously challenged.

Fortunately, I survived the experience relatively unscathed (save for the total loss of certain beliefs that were wholly untenable in the light of sound evidence to the contrary).

I therefore think that the 'Mormons' have got the idea of "religion" completely backwards and twisted around. And (again) that is very sad.

It took me many years to figure this out (since I was raised by them). As you may well imagine, it is so very hard to turn against the beliefs one was taught as a child ...

I have here spoken of (and quoted) "Jesus" as if he were a real human being, but please remember that I only do this so as to better be able to teach certain important points. ... I do not in fact believe "he" ever had any physical existence on this earth (at least not in the guise with which he is familiar to us from our shared cultural heritage).

Now, in saying all of the above, I do not for a moment mean to be understood as saying that all ‘Mormons’ are necessarily ‘bad’ people. There are in this faith (as indeed in all faiths) an enormous number of otherwise decent, wonderful human beings—some of whom I count as friends, and some of whom are my own distant kinspeople. I would never say they are ‘bad’ people—only greatly deluded or mistaken people. I truly believe that if they could only see the serious, profound contradictions inherent in ‘Mormonism’, they would soon have to view the religion in much the same way I now do. …

T.J. White
23 December, 2007

Letter to Mike (excerpt), March 5th, 2008

2008-03-05T09:25:00.000-08:00

Yeah, the traffic in the metro Atlanta area is just about as bad as anywhere else in the country. It even compares to the traffic in Los Angeles or NYC--and I would know, because I've been in both of those places more than once. Down here, we pretty much don't drive anywhere unless there's a darn good reason to do so--and even then, we always try to take the short-cuts and backroads, to avoid as much of the traffic as possible. In some parts of metro Atlanta, there's pretty much bumper-to-bumper 'rush hour' traffic mostly all day long, with little or no let-up. I'm telling you--I'm serious when I say I really want to permanently move away from a place like this. This is really sad and heartbreaking for me to have to watch, because when I was growing up here, most of the surrounding area was still rural and farmland. Now it's all subdivisions and strip-malls. It's pathetic. Having to watch the land I love getting raped by the soulless developers.

Best not to get me started on that topic--it breaks my heart, and will only infuriate me, and infuriate me even more, knowing there's nothing I can do about it except try to leave. I guess it's like knowing you have to get a divorce from someone you truly love deeply, but just can't keep living with. Like you, I'm a 'country boy' at heart, and belong in a place where the nearest neighbour is "two miles away as the crow flies". I would have preferred that my home be here, but I have known for some years that I could no longer be happy here.

I may have already told you about this once before, but the most incredible experience I ever had in my entire life was whilst ... in South Africa; we had travelled ... to a game preserve (Kruger National Park)--which is huge--and drove around in it all day that we were there. We were literally a hundred kilometers (or more) from the nearest other human being, or sign of civilisation. Nothing but the dirt road in front of us and behind us, grass, a few acacia trees, some occasional wild animals, and endless sky ... We would have really been in trouble had our car quit running. It's one of those places the size of a small country, and they make you register upon entering the park (so they know you're there, and can come rescue you if you don't come back out within 24 hours).

But I gotta tell you--being in that place--with only ... [two] other friend[s] beside me, literally a hundred or more kilometres from even a vestige of human activity, was the most overwhelming experience of utter solitude and desolation I've ever experienced in my entire life. It felt like I had found the wild and primitive Garden of Eden, out there on the sun-burnt plains of Africa. It felt like I had gone back in time to the very dawn of creation, to a time when no other human beings existed on the earth yet--to a time when the air itself was still pure, from not having yet been fouled by humankind's filth. What an awesome experience that was ... Truly, I had serious doubts about whether or not I wanted to go back to the States. Except for missing my family and friends, I think I would have been perfectly content to have stayed right there, in that paradise.

It occurred to me then (and I still think) that, in accepting our civilisation with all its benefits and advantages, we have nonetheless given up and surrendered something beautiful, noble, vital, and necessary from our existence. And the sad part is, that most people don't even realise it's missing! And what that missing thing is, is the knowledge of what it actually feels like to be truly free, and independent. We don't realise it most of the time, but we truly are slaves: slaves to one thing or another. We could be slaves to a career, or slaves to a spouse and family; we could be slaves to a government, or to taxation. In every instance, we have voluntarily surrendered a degree of our freedom, in order to purchase one particular advantage or another. But is the cost worth what we get? I still think that's a very compelling question ... You see, I once had the experience of utter, complete freedom--I thus know fully well what it is ... Most people think they have some idea of what it is, but probably are far off the mark.

Letter to Dianne

2008-03-04T13:27:00.000-08:00

The will of the Father is always unfolding around us--it is a continuous process--even at those times when it may seem to go contrary to OUR wills. ... Homo proponit, sed Deus disponit--Man proposes, but God in his own time (and way) disposes (and not always to our liking). But regardless, God's will is still ALWAYS being accomplished. Even 'Evil' is a part of that plan, for if not, then it means that God is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient.

Our only prayers, then, should be for our own acceptance and peace with God's will (especially when it seems so painful and distressing for us personally), not to ask that that will be changed to suit our own desires.

I know this may not be much comfort in time of stress and trial, but I also nonetheless believe it to be true. ... And I personally cannot do anything but speak the truth. I am incapable of hiding behind a convenient, comforting half-truth (or even outright untruth).

Having said that, though, I do wish only the very best for your friend, and for all such children of the Living Father who are simliarly distressed. God knows I have been there often enough myself. And can I then have no compassion for others who also suffer as I have? One cannot LOVE unless one has first SUFFERED.

I ask that the peace of the Father may find a place in your souls.

Love,

T.

Letter to a Friend, April 25th, 2007 (excerpt)

2007-04-25T14:30:00.000-07:00

I am reading a book right now (mostly finished actually) about Lincoln's "Melancholy" or depression, and one of the significant points the author makes (in my opinion) is that a significant part of the origin of Lincoln's depression is the fact that he had a keenly intelligent, penetrating mind and awareness of things, which served to make him feel separated from his contemporaries, and to also frequently feel powerless in the face of what he called "Fate" (or Destiny).

I can definitely relate to that. Part of why very intelligent people are often such pessimists (or often depressed) is that very fact that they are aware of so much more than most people will ever be capable of even imagining (much less comprehending)!

Not only does this serve to keep us forever apart from most other 'ordinary' people, but the painfully realistic (and grim) view of life and this world which we perceive tends greatly to make us fatalistic and to fuel our depression. Several great writers have written about this--including Thomas Mann (1875-1955) who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1929 (which infuriated Hitler after he came to power four years later).

But the real question is: where is the place for people like that in today's competitive 'business' world? That world really does not seem to care, or at least, when it does, it seems to care only to the extent that it usually perceives people like myself as grave threats, needing to be swiftly and ruthlessly exterminated (or rendered powerless) for the good of society.

You think perhaps that I exaggerate. I assure you that I do not. British existentialist writer and thinker Colin Wilson (whom I already quoted in the excerpt included in the newsletter), said exactly that, in his 1957 work from which I quoted, Religion and the Rebel. And from my own personal experience in my life, I unfortunately have to largely agree with him.

Great intelligence is not always a good thing to be desired. ... If you only knew where it would end up leading you if you had it. .... "Aye, there's the rub!" (quoting Shakespeare again.)

If I had my choice (I sometimes think, half seriously) I would eagerly trade this profound (and painful) awareness and learning for the "bliss of the commonplace", as one of Mann's English translators once rendered his phrase.

There is thus much truth to the old oft-quoted phrase "ignorance is bliss". ...

Is it any wonder, then, that occasionally such people "fall off their rockers" (so to speak), as Lincoln repeatedly did throughout his life, and as Nietzsche finally, tragically did near the end of his?

Things that make you go "Hmmm". ...

Food for some serious thought here. ...

Letter to a Cousin (Jan. 2007)

2007-01-26T07:36:00.000-08:00

Hi [ ]--

I just received your reply. Your concern for my safety is most touching, and I don't quite know what to say, except that I'm profoundly moved and grateful. Not to demean you at all, but I wish I could arouse similar sentiments in my immediate family. Other than my parents and one aunt (who react as you do), no one else seems to be bothered to notice my existence any more. I speak here of siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. They seem to think I'm the 'black sheep' of the family (actions do speak louder than words) and therefore deserving of ostracism, since they seem to think (as far as I can tell) that I have scandalized THEIR REPUTATIONS.

Well, forgive me if I am wrong, but what is worse in your view--to have made some bad mistakes in years past, or to fail to show love and compassion to one's suffering fellow-man in the present? In my own humble opinion, I believe that a person whose heart is filled with God-like love and compassion (whatever his other failings) cannot--by definition--be a bad person.

It grieves me that so many people in my immediate family have not yet learned this most important life-lesson, and I marvel that the same DNA that produced me has also produced them. Very hard not to judge, eh? We are only human, after all ...

I awoke this morning in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to find about five inches of snow on the ground, with an accumulation of about eight to ten inches expected. But at least it's not ICE. Snow can be handled--if done with care and caution. ...

The snow is briskly falling right now, even as I write this, and occasionally the wind slackens, and the mystical flakes really come alive then, magically and dreamily floating on the still air. Ah, what a wonderful sight! It is so profoundly, hauntingly beautiful--it seems to renew the world overnight (as Thoreau said), to transform this tired, dreary, mundane world of sorrows and regrets into such an innocent, childlike wonderland that (in me at least) it helps renew a sense of hope that things can eventually get better. This beautiful, pure, white, driven snow--a gift from God, in the sense that it helps relieve our burden of sorrow, by transforming our perceived world into something almost indescribably lovely and beautiful, into something truly divine--a glimpse of Heaven itself, as it were, and thereby giving us greater hope for the future.

My poet's soul is profoundly moved by a spectacle such as this (even as the practical, truck-driver side of me worries ...).

This pure and beautiful snow, with its transforming power, puts me in mind of what Nietzsche wrote in 1889, even as the madness had started to destroy his mind:

"All the world is transfigured, and the Heavens are filled with Joy..."

And this leads me to ask: had the madness, before it completely destroyed his Reason, perhaps at first briefly afforded some rare glimpse into regions Celestial--into the hidden beauty of this world, ordinarily denied to us mere Mortals? The Japanese have a word for this 'hidden' or subtle beauty: shibui. From Nietzsche's comment, such a thing would seem at least possible--even if it was only in his tragically-deluded mind at that point.

I would like to think so, at any rate: that the capricious gods, before depriving him of his wonderfully brilliant mind forever, gave him one last, final (and very cruel) gift of insight--the epiphany of all epiphanies--into the incredible, marvelous beauty of spirit this world possesses, but which beauty we frequently fail, due to our mental conditioning to the contrary, to properly see and behold.

Oh, how truly the gods do mock us, and use us for their Sport!

T.J. White
15 January, 2007

Letter to a new acquaintance (excerpt)

2007-01-01T11:11:00.000-08:00

My driving time is also my thinking time. It lets me get away from other people and pressures which would otherwise constantly occupy my thoughts, & largely prevent me from being able to think & reflect about things (which is how I prefer to spend much of my time anyway). I am a philosopher, you see. The word "philosopher" (in case you don't already know) comes from two Greek words, "philo-" meaning "love of", and "sophia", meaning "wisdom" or "knowledge". So, since I am a person in love with knowledge and learning things, I believe I truly am a "philosopher". Driving big rigs over the wide open stretches of America merely takes me away from normal, everyday life (like Thoreau in the woods), and allows me the time and opportunity to really think. I never was happy with the 'normal' nine-to-five routine and competitiveness of the life I once tried to pursue. And finding that I was not likely to be handed a job as a college professor merely based on my good looks (ha!), I went out on the open road as a perpetual traveller, since I was better-known there anyway.

Many of the people in my family are professional educators, and a number of us also write, so I guess I "fit right in". My first cousin, Dr. [ ] White, is Associate Professor of Mathematics at [ ] College in [ ]--quite a brilliant human being. His late Dad (my uncle) was even smarter, and could never be "stumped" by even the most difficult, "unsolveable" mathematical problems which his son (the Mathematician, who couldn't even solve them himself!) would present to him!

My field, however, is not mathematics, but rather life itself. I am mostly a serious, even somber person. I do often find situations funny and laughable, but there is nothing trivial or frivolous about me at all. I do not like to waste my time with personal interactions with most people I see from day to day. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they are very few. I was almost certainly mildly autistic as a boy and young man, and much of this tendency still carries over to the present day. It seems (from what I've read on the subject) that the frequent drawback to having a brilliant mind is also being autistic (and thus antisocial). In other words, the same gene (or genetic combination) which produces the brilliant left-brained mind also seems to produce autism (much of the time, anyway).

I guess you could also say that--due to my autism--I'm still trying to find where and how I "fit" into this crazy, mixed-up world, and feel I need to distance myself from other people to give myself the time to think things through properly.

I hope I have not put you off by saying any of this. But I do want you to realize who and what you are dealing with here.

Oh, you are very right about Illinois being very gray and depressing in the Winter! I have seen so much of it over these last few weeks that I will be very happy indeed when Spring (and some greenness) finally arrives!

Yes, there is a stark, bare, almost primitive beauty to that barren landscape--if one has the eyes with which to see it. I saw similar stark, raw, wild and primitive beauty in several places when I was in South Africa twenty some years ago--many places there look much like our Great Plains.

(Oh, and since you might have wondered about the French I used--) I am also a self-taught student of several languages--including French--but mostly the older forms, like Medieval English, Medieval French, Italian, Latin, Greek, Gothic, Medieval Old High German, etc. I am not so much interested in what now IS, as much as I am interested in HOW IT GOT THAT WAY. I have always liked to delve into the causes of things--the "whys" and "wherefores" of existence.

Terrence.

A Fugitive and a Vagabond in the Earth am I ...

2006-01-30T10:46:00.000-08:00

Ecce eicis me hodie a facie terrae, et a facie tua abscondar,
et ero vagus et profugus in terra; omnis igitur qui invenerit me,
occidet me. ...

Heu, ego dolentus, ego miser: poenarum plagarum inundant:
amari, amari torrentes. ...

Vae, misero mihi!

Quid sum miser tunc dicturus?

Dicam Deo: Noli me condemnare: indica mihi cur me ita judices;
numquid bonum tibi videtur, si calumnieris et opprimas me,
opus manuum tuarum, et consilium impiorum adiures;
numquid oculi carnei tibi sunt, aut sicut videt homo,
et tu videbis? ...

Et scias, quia nihil impium fecerim cum sit nemo, qui de manu tua,
possit eruere. ...

Non Est Species

2005-12-24T16:56:00.000-08:00

Non est species ei neque decor, et vidimus eum et non erat aspectus et desideravimus eum. Despectum et novissimum virorum, virum dolorum et scientem infirmitatem. ...

Isaiah 53: 2-3

Commentary on an Arabian Nights' Tale

2005-12-18T11:52:00.000-08:00

A Commentary on a tale from The Arabian Nights, "The Tale of Hasan and the Persian Magician". In this commentary, I have used the Powys Mathers translation, as found in the book, Gay Tales and Verses from The Arabian Nights, compiled, edited, and with an introduction by Henry M. Christman (Banned Books, Austin, Texas: 1989)

_____________________________

Page thirty-six describes the main character, Hasan, as "a youth ... who was the most handsome, gracious, and dainty of his time." His "beauty drew the eyes of all passengers to-wards his shop [he was a very young and boyish shop-owner], and none crossed the market without stopping at the door to contemplate and marvel at this work of the Creator" [i.e., at the young man's remarkable beauty.] In other words, his outward physical appearance conformed especially closely to the common archetypal image of the beautiful young man--so much so that the majority of people, both male and female, were drawn to his beauty.

Also from page thirty-six we learn that "His father and mother loved him greatly, for he was the child of their old age ..."

This generation gap, together with the fact that his father had died while the boy was yet young, would seem to suggest--despite the weak inference--that the boy was deprived of some of his necessary emotional familial bonding as a child, and was therefore sending out sub-conscious signals to others advertising his need for such emotional bonding (i.e., "love" and "approval" from older authority-figures). The boy would thus be ripe, we would say, for the attentions of an older homosexual male. This is quite separate and apart from the notice the boy would attract simply because of his strong archetypal 'beauty'.

Also from page thirty-six:

"[H]e soon wasted his father's savings in feasting and dissipation with young men of his own age ..."

The implication here, of course, is that only relationships with those older (and wiser) than himself will help him--that congress with only more inexperienced youths such as himself will inevitably lead only to his ruin (cf. the Biblical story of the "Prodigal Son"). Perhaps (in passing) this lesson is appropriate for today's young men--enamoured of each other (in the form of gangs) as they are. ... But of course--at least as far as today's youth are concerned--the reverse can also be argued: that it is a failure of intergenerational bonding--due to fear of relating and expressing intergenerational emotions or sexuality--which precisely forces young men to bond with each other, instead of with their elders.

At page thirty-seven, the Persian Magus wishes to adopt the boy as his own son and teach him his art. For references to this ancient pedagogic tradition, see John Boswell's The Kindness of Strangers.

Based also on page thirty-seven:

Whether from hope of riches, or from the sub-conscious realisation that his deepest needs for emotional bonding are (potentially) about to be met, the young man is already defending his growing relationship with the Persian Magus to his mother. One wonders to what degree the (admittedly fictional) youth was being knowingly and intentionally devious and complicitory in the matter. ... Note also, from page thirty-eight, that the youth is either ignorant of his own beauty (and its potential for attracting others to him), or intentionally glosses over and hides its power in front of his mother: "Mother, [he says] we are poor and have nothing to tempt the cupidity of any ..." In other words, "How could this old man ever possibly be interested in little old ME? ..."

Also at page thirty-eight, the magus demands a non-married status from the youth in exchange for the magus' knowledge. How convenient! This is actually because--following ancient practise--the youth becomes in effect the sexual partner of the older teacher in exchange for the love, guidance, and knowledge imparted. The youth essentially becomes a magus-in-training, and--as such--becomes the life-partner of the older teacher in every way (including the sexual). That is to say, the two must bond in all areas. Historically, such master-student relationships have sometimes been tolerated, occasionally even encouraged; today, however, this is obviously not the case. (This is what is known to some of us as the 'pedagogic' tradition.)

From page thirty-nine:

Irrespective of the actual form of the instruction, what the magus has actually been doing, in effect, is teaching the boy an alternative way of perceiving his reality, and since most different ways of 'perceiving reality' usually violate local taboo or custom (as in this example), strong resistance is usually encountered. Most people (as in the boy's mother) are usually timid sheep who dare not think of going against societal custom or thought, and as a result, they are almost always intolerant of attempts by those within their influence (relatives, neighbours, friends, etc.) to stray beyond those invisible mind-boundaries. Some of us more adventurous souls today encounter this same type of resistance and/or punishment for daring to think (and especially act) counter to the prevailing "wisdom".

But it should be especially noted that the price or prerequisite for higher knowledge (mystical awareness, esoteric knowledge, etc.) has ever been--first and foremost--the ability to see beyond one's own immediate cultural frontiers, or ways of thinking. In order to advance in knowledge and experience, therefore, cultural "norms" must first be challenged and shown to be relative--i.e., not by any means fixed and immutable. This is exactly what the magus has been doing: teaching the youth to see beyond his society's arbitrary restrictions. This is the first step on the path of knowledge, or "enlightenment". And since those with vested interests in societies usually do not like their privileged status to be challenged or threatened [would you, in a similar position? Would I?], they usually fiercely persecute these true teachers or "light-bringers" (Lucifers) of humanity--label them as "devils" or "witches" (etc.) so as to create fear in the minds of their potential field of candidates, thus crippling the passing of real saving knowledge and mystical illumination (which has ever been the goal of true alchemy or kabbalah) from potential master/teachers to their potential students.

October or November, 1995.

T.J. White

'Vova' Gorelikov (age 20), one of my new Russian friends

2005-08-17T10:34:00.000-07:00

With Andrey Sychev (19) and 'Vova' Gorelikov (20), August, 2005

2005-08-17T10:31:00.000-07:00

With Andrey Baryshev (19) and 'Vova' Gorelikov (20), August, 2005

2005-08-17T10:28:00.001-07:00

"Vova" Gorelikov, one of my new Russian friends (age 20)

2005-08-17T10:25:00.000-07:00

Reply To "Anonymous"

2005-08-14T08:52:00.000-07:00

Have rec'd your comments. Very much appreciate your interest & time. Have not yet heard of 'Neoteny', but looked up the web site you indicated & will read & study with great interest. Will comment further when I process the info. Thanks! T.J. White.

Hi--Back again. I wonder if David Brin, ph.D. has heard of Elaine Morgan's "Aquatic Ape" theory..... For convenience, I am pasting
one of the web pages mentioning the same below. It is at the site http://www.primitivism.com/aquatic-ape.htm . This theory,
while mildly controversial (and when is any compelling theory not?) seems to me to offer the most sane reason and common sense.

All for now. More later.
T.J. White

______________________________________________

Elaine Morgan has done most of the writing in support of this interesting and mildly controversial hypothesis of Alistair Hardy. For those who feel a strong affinity for water--and considering the cost of lakefront and especially oceanfront property, that is a lot of us--I think the theory resonates in some respect, and it perhaps opens our perspective on what a life closer to nature might be like.--JF)

Aquatic Ape Theory

Elaine Morgan

"An aquatic Ape is a likely ancestor of humans in terms of primate behaviour, marine ecosystems and geophysical timing."
- Prof. Derek Ellis, Dept. of Biology, Uni. of Victoria, Canada

"All other theories about the origin of our species have reached an impasse."
- Dr. Michel Odent, author of 'Water and sexuality'

"An aquatic hypothesis offers far simpler explanations."
- Dr. Chris Knight, author of 'Blood Relations'

"It is difficult to see how all the points assembled to back the Aquatic Theory can be explained away."
- Dr. Desmond Morris, author of 'The Naked Ape'

"The aquatic hypothesis... cannot be eliminated yet."
- Prof. Glyn Isaac

"We believe that this proposal [AAT] should be taken seriously."
- Prof Michael Crawford, author of 'The Driving Force'

"[AAT] conforms to current theories of speciation better than the savannah origins model, and accounts for a number of diverse phenomena hitherto not seen as connected."
- Prof. Graham Richards, author of 'Human Evolution'

Why humans differ from apes

Scientists find it easy to explain why we resemble the African apes so closely by pointing out that gorillas, chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
It is much harder to explain why we differ from the gorilla and the chimpanzee much more markedly than they differ from one another. Something must have happened to cause one section of the ancestral ape population to proceed along an entirely different evolutionary path.
The most widely held theory, still taught in schools and universities, is that we are descended from apes which moved out of the forests onto the grasslands of the open savannah. The distinctly human features are thus supposed to be adaptations to a savannah environment.
In that case, we would expect to find at least some of these adaptations to be paralleled in other savannah mammals. But there is not a single instance of this, not even among species like baboons and vervets, which are descended from forest- dwelling ancestors.
This awkward fact has not caused savannah theorists to abandon their hypothesis, but it leaves a lot of problems unanswered. For example, on the question of why humans lost their body hair, it has been argued at various times that no explanation is called for, or that we may never know the reason, or even that there may not be a reason. These attitudes seem to be not merely defeatist, but fundamentally unscientific.

The Aquatic Ape Theory (AAT) offers an alternative scenario. It suggests that when our ancestors moved onto the savannah they were already different from the apes; that nakedness, bipedalism, and other modifications had begun to evolve much earlier, when the ape and human lines first diverged.

AAT points out that most of the "enigmatic" features of human physiology, though rare or even unique among land mammals, are common in aquatic ones. If we postulate that our earliest ancestors had found themselves living for a prolonged period in a flooded, semi-aquatic habitat, most of the unsolved problems become much easier to unravel.
There is powerful geological evidence to support this hypothesis, and nothing in the fossil record that is inconsistent with it. Some of the issues it raises are briefly outlined in the following pages.

The naked ape

Humans are classed anatomically among the primates, the order of which includes apes, monkeys and lemurs. Among the hundreds of living primate species, only humans are naked.

Two kinds of habitat are known to give rise to naked mammals - a subterranean one or a wet one. There is a naked Somalian mole rat which never ventures above ground. All other non-human mammals which have lost all or most of their fur are either swimmers like whales and dolphins and walruses and manatees, or wallowers like hippopotamuses and pigs and tapirs. The rhinoceros and the elephant, though found on land since Africa became drier, bear traces of a more watery past and seize every opportunity of wallowing in mud or water.

It has been suggested that humans became hairless "to prevent overheating in the savannah". But no other mammal has ever resorted to this strategy. A covering of hair acts as a defense against the heat of the sun: that is why even the desert- dwelling camel retains its fur. Another version is "to facilitate sweat-cooling". But again many species resort to sweat-cooling quite effectively without needing to lose their hair.

There is no known reason why an ape should suffer more from overheating than the savannah baboon. And, especially for a savannah primate, there would be a high price to pay for hairlessness. Primate infants are carried around clinging to their mothers' fur; the females would be severely hampered in their foraging when that no longer became possible.

One general conclusion seems undeniable from an overall survey of mammalian species: that while a coat of fur provides the best insulation for land mammals the best insulation in water is not fur, but a layer of fat.

Fat

Humans are by far the fattest primates; we have ten times as many fat cells in our bodies as would be expected in an animal of our size.

There are two kinds of animals which tend to acquire large deposits of fat - hibernating ones and aquatic ones. In hibernating mammals the fat is seasonal; in most aquatic ones, as in humans it is present all the year round. Also, in land mammals fat tends to be stored internally, especially around the kidneys and intestines; in aquatic mammals and in humans a higher proportion is deposited under the skin.

It is unlikely that early man would have evolved this feature after moving to the plains and becoming a hunter, because it would have slowed him down. No land-based predator can afford to get fat. Our tendency to put on fat is likelier to be an inheritance from an earlier aquatic phase of our evolution. It is true that some apes, especially in captivity, may put on weight, but we still differ from them in two important ways. One is that they are never born fat. All infant primates except our own are slender; their lives may depend on their ability to cling to their mothers and support their whole weight with their fingers. Our own babies accumulate fat even before birth and continue to grow fatter for several months afterwards. Some of this fat is white fat, and that is extremely rare in new-born mammals. White fat is not much good for supplying instant heat and energy. It is good for insulation in water, and for giving buoyancy.

The other difference is that in our case the subcutaneous fat is bonded to the skin. When an anatomist skins a cat or rabbit or chimpanzee, any superficial fat deposits remain attached to the underlying tissues. In the case of humans, the fat comes away with the skin, just as it does in aquatic species like dolphins, seals, hippos and manatees.

Walking on two legs

Human beings are the only mammals in the world that habitually walk on two legs. (The only other creature with a perpendicular gait is an aquatic bird, the penguin.)

It is not surprising bipedalism is so rare. Compared with running or walking on four legs it has many disadvantages. It is slower; it is relatively unstable; it is a skill that takes many years to learn, and it exposes vulnerable organs to attack.

We have been doing it for five million years and in that time our bodies have been drastically remoulded to make it easier, but it is still the direct cause of many discomforts and ailments such as back pains, varicose veins, haemorrhoids, hernias and problems in childbirth. It would have been far more difficult and laborious for our ape-like ancestors; only some powerful pressure could have induced them to adopt a way of walking for which they were initially so ill suited.

One hypothesis used to be that they first developed big brains and began to make tools, and finally walked on their hind legs to free their hands for carrying weapons. But we now know that it was bipedalism that came first, before the big brain and tool-making.

However, if their habitat had become flooded, they would have been forced to walk on their hind legs whenever they came down to the ground in order to keep their heads above water. The only animal which has ever evolved a pelvis like ours, suitable for bipedalism, was the long-extinct _Oreopithecus_, known as the swamp ape.

Today, two primates when on the ground stand and walk erect somewhat more readily than most other species. One, the proboscis monkey, lives in the mangrove swamps of Borneo. The other is the bonobo or pygmy chimpanzee; its habitat includes a large tract of seasonally flooded forest, which would have covered an even more extensive area before the African climate became drier.

Both of these species enjoy the water. It is interesting that the bonobos often mate face-to-face as humans do; in our case it is explained as a consequence of bipedalism. This mode of mating is another characteristic very rare among land animals, which we share with a wide range of aquatic mammals such as dolphins, beavers and sea otters. What we have in common with them is a mode of locomotion in which the spine and the hind limbs are in a straight line, and that affects the position of the sex organs.

Breathing

The human respiratory system is unlike any other land mammal's in two respects.

The first is that we have conscious control of our breathing. In most mammals these actions are involuntary, like the heart beat or the processes of digestion.

Voluntary breath control appears to be an aquatic adaptation because, apart from ourselves, it is found only in aquatic mammals like seals and dolphins. When they decide how deep they are going to dive, they can estimate how much air they need to inhale. Without voluntary breath control it is very unlikely that we could have learned to speak.

The other human peculiarity is called "the descended larynx". A land mammal is normally obliged to breathe through its nose most of the time, because its windpipe passes up through the back of the throat and the top end of it (the larynx) is situated in the back of its nasal passages. A dog, for example, has to make a special effort to bring its larynx down into its throat in order to bark or to pant; when it relaxes, the larynx goes back up again. Even our own babies are born like that.

A few months after birth the human larynx descends into the throat, right down below the back of the tongue. Darwin found that very puzzling because it means that the opening to the lungs lies side by side with the opening to the stomach. That is why in our species food and drink may sometimes go "down the wrong way". If we had not evolved an elaborate swallowing mechanism it would happen every time.

This arrangement means that we can breathe through our mouths as easily as through our noses. It is probable that this is an aquatic adaptation, because a swimmer needing to gulp air quickly can inhale more of it through the mouth than through the nostrils. And we do know that the only birds which are obligatory mouth breathers are diving birds like penguins, pelicans and gannets. As for mammals, the only ones with a descended larynx, apart from ourselves, are aquatic ones - the sea lion and the dugong.

Other differences

It is impossible in a brief outline to discuss all the physical features distinguishing us from the apes, but a few are worth mentioning.
For example, we have a different way of sweating from other mammals, using different skin glands. It is very wasteful of the body's essential resources of water and salt. It is therefore unlikely that we acquired it on the savannah, where water and salt are both in short supply.
We weep tears of emotion, controlled by different nerves from the ones that cause our eyes to water in response to smoke or dust. No other land animal does this. There are marine birds, marine reptiles and marine mammals which shed water through their eyes, or through special nasal glands, when they have swallowed too much seawater. This process may also be triggered in them by an emotional excitement caused by feeding or fighting or frustration. Weeping animals, apart from ourselves, include the walrus, the seal and the sea otter.

We have millions of sebaceous glands which exude oil over head, face and torso, and in young adults often causes acne. The chimpanzee's sebaceous glands are described as "vestigial" whereas ours are described as "enormous". Their purpose is obscure. In other animals the only known function of sebum is that of waterproofing the skin or the fur.
The most widely discussed contrast between ourselves and the apes is that we have bigger brains. A bigger brain may well have been an advantage to early man, but it would have been equally of advantage to a chimpanzee: the question is why one of them acquired it.

One factor may have been nutritional. The building of brain tissue, unlike other body tissues, is dependent on an adequate supply of Omega-3 fatty acids, which are abundant in the marine food chain but relatively scarce in the land food chain.

AAT is the only theory which logically connects all these and other enigmatic features and relates them to a single well attested historical event.

The time and the place

It is now generally agreed that the man/ape split occurred in Africa between 7 and 5 million years ago, during a period known as the fossil gap.

Before it there was an animal which was the common ancestor of human and African apes. After it, there emerged a creature smaller than ourselves, but bearing the unmistakable hallmark of the first shift towards human status: it walked on two legs.

This poses two questions: "Where were the earliest fossils found?" and "Do we know of anything happening in that place at that time that might have caused apes and humans to evolve along separate lines?"

The oldest pre-human fossils (including the best known one, "Lucy") are called australopithecus afarensis because their bones were discovered in the afar triangle, and area of low lying land near the Red Sea. About 7 million years ago that area was flooded by the sea and became the Sea of
Afar.

Part of the ape population living there at the time would have found themselves living in a radically changed habitat. Some may have been marooned on off-shore islands - the present day Danakil Alps were once surrounded by water. Others may have lived in flooded forests, salt marshes, mangrove swamps, lagoons or on the shores of the new sea, and they would all have had to adapt or die.

AAT suggests that some of them survived, and began to adapt to their watery environment. Much later, when the Sea of Afar became landlocked and finally evaporated, their descendants returned to the mainland of Africa and began to migrate southwards, following the waterways of the Rift Valley upstream.

There is nothing in the fossil record to invalidate this scenario, and much to sustain it. Lucy's bones were found at Afar lying among crocodile and turtle eggs and crab claws at the edge of a flood plain near what would then have been the coast of Africa.

Other fossils of Australopithecus, dated later, were found further south, almost invariably in the immediate vicinity of ancient lakes and rivers.
We now know that the change from the ape into Australopithecus took place in a short space of time, by evolutionary standards. Such rapid speciation is almost invariably a sign that one population of a species has become isolated by a geographical barrier such as a stretch of water. ...

The Aquatic phase took place more than 5 million years ago. Since then, Homo has had five million years to re-adapt to terrestrial life. It is not surprising that the traces of aquatic adaptation have become partially obliterated and have gone unrecognized for so long. But the traces are still there as the table indicates. ...

2005-08-08T14:22:00.000-07:00

Andrey Sychev (age 19). Closeup of photo below.

2005-08-08T14:08:00.000-07:00

Andrey Sychev (age 19), my new friend from Krasnodar, Russia. (Photographed in Miami, FL, July, 2005).

With My Best Boy, January 9th, 2004

2005-07-24T14:56:00.000-07:00

Thruster Holding Me Tight

2005-07-20T12:55:00.000-07:00

I am he that walks with the tender and growing night;
I call to the earth and sea half-held by the night.
Press close barebosomed night! Press close magnetic nourishing night!

Night of the south winds! Night of the large few stars!
Still nodding night! Mad naked summer night! ...

Prodigal! you have given me love! .... therefore I to you give love!
O unspeakable passionate love!

Thruster holding me tight and that I hold tight!
We hurt each other as the bridegroom and the bride hurt each other. ...

Walt Whitman,
from Song of Myself

Probably the most thought-provoking photo I ever took of him.

2005-07-15T17:09:00.000-07:00

Peaks of Western Culture

2005-06-21T10:47:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from a recent e-mail to Fred Child, Programme Director of NPR's "Performance Today" radio broadcast:

.... [T]hanks for including the new Bach aria discovery last week (old business). Any new addition to the Bach repertoire is always welcome (and interest-provoking).

I wonder, in passing, however (and this is a general comment, not directed to you personally), whether we are not sometimes guilty of over-emphasizing every tiny jot and tittle of the music of Bach at the expense of many another, perhaps equally-worthy composer of the period. Examples of these would be Locatelli, Marcello, the Scarlattis (pere et fils), Corrette, Pergolesi, Gluck, the Benda brothers, Quantz, Boccherini, Soler, and even some of Bach's own sons--Emmanuel and Johann Christian, for example--some of these composers dating from the latter half of that century. Bach was unquestionably a giant in 18th-Century music--indeed, of all music (from our standpoint, anyway)--both intellectually and aesthetically, but if we want to be intellectually honest, we must admit that the world of such music did not begin or end with him (nor with the likes of Handel, Mozart, or Haydn--great as they admittedly were). As you will probably know (and agree), there were many others (at that time) who were far better-known and better-liked than Bach. Proper historical perspective requires that we at least acknowledge this fact.

I don't want this attempt at criticism to sound like I'm trying to devalue Bach. I actually admire and respect most, if not all, of his endeavours--even if and when I may not always find them as aesthetically-pleasing as works by other composers. Let me say, rather, that I'm only attempting to place him in proper perspective.

As to this morning's programme (about time I actually got around to the real order of business)--thanks once again, this time for the Vivaldi e-minor Violin Concerto, performed by the Venice Baroque Orchestra. I have heard this work before, from a recording by the Moscow Virtuosi, so I was familiar with it.

A word concerning this particular work, if I may:

There are from time to time moments, in the world of the fine arts, when a particular balance, harmony, and seeming-bliss of perfection is achieved. Such a moment of perfection may not always be apparent to observers at the precise instant it is revealed, but later generations (with a discerning eye) can look back and see the glorious moment of radiant perfection that was. (Schopenhauer once said something along these lines ...) Robert Schumann once described Mozart's 'great' g-minor symphony (K.550) as possessing a "Grecian lightness and grace"
(per Marc Vignal), or, as Neal Zaslaw once wrote, "the classical balance, proportions and repose of a Greek vase." This is what I'm talking about here.

The Vivaldi concerto in question here, is (in my opinion) just such a moment of perfection as I describe. I'm not a proper musicologist, so I cannot state with authority just when the work dates from, but I would guess, based on its style, that it dates from late in Vivaldi's career--i.e., the 1730s. Even if it may not, it still bears the marks of that style--a harbinger, therefore, of things to come. This work, to me, seems to be infused with the 'spiritoso' style of the 'galant' Roccoco age; it breathes a softer, more serene and contemplative air than the vigorous, virtuoso 'Baroque' Vivaldi we are accustomed to. To sum up, it is quite possibly the most sublime and elegant work I have yet heard from Vivaldi--very much worthy to be placed alongside anything by Boccherini (my true Arbiter of Elegance--even more than Haydn).

Other works I place in this same category (and not always musical examples, either) include the Parthenon in Athens, the "Winged Victory" statue of Samothrace, the "David" statue of Verrocchio (even more than the one by Michelangelo), certain poems by Keats (his "Ode on a Grecian Urn", and "To Autumn", for example), and Franz Benda's Flute Concerto in e-minor, Corrette's Flute and Keyboard Concerto (Op.26, No.6), Gluck's Reigen Seliger Geister (Dance of the Blessed Spirits) from his Orfeo ed Euridyce, Locatelli's Violin Concerto in c-minor (Op.3, No.2), Handel's Concerto Grosso in g-minor (Op.6, No.12), Marcello's Oboe Concerto in d-minor, Beethoven's 'Pastoral' Symphony (No.6), and several of Boccherini's works (too numerous to mention individually). All of these (and there are others) I consider to be profound 'high points' in our Western tradition of the arts and culture, which we have inherited from Greece and Rome. It is sad and much to be regretted, I think, that these (and other) important examples of cultural excellence in our history and tradition are so much ignored, devalued, and neglected as they are today by so many people--particularly the young, who are our future [i.e., the 'hip-hop' generation]. Mine is almost a lone voice "crying in the wilderness," I think;
a modern-day Boethius regretting the passing and loss of so much excellence, beauty and wisdom from his day and age. [Sic transit gloria mundi .... thus passes the glory of the world.]

On the Subject of Christian Denominations

2005-06-10T11:11:00.000-07:00

Unlike many people nowadays who call themselves "Christian," I take a very laid-back and relaxed attitude toward denominations: to me one denomination versus another is much like preferring 'this' flavour of ice-cream over 'that' flavour. Some people prefer
'Chocolate' over 'Plain Vanilla', whereas others like 'French Vanilla' instead of 'Plain Vanilla'. (Oo-La-La!!!....) Some people are really 'out there' and want 'Raspberry Truffle', or even
'Licorice' (these I compare to denominations such as the 'hard-shell' Evangelicals, or the 'Jehovah's Witnesses'). I myself can tolerate and find myself at home in just about any denomination of "Christianity" except the 'licorice' varieties--they are just too extreme, too doctrinaire, too dogmatic and intolerant for me.

And as far as these denominations (generally-speaking) go--it seems to me that 'Plain Vanilla' will fill one's belly (and provide about the same degree of nutrition) as any other, more exotic flavour. In other words, they can all of them (just about) get you to 'Heaven'--if (big if) you know how to let them do so. That is the real trick--discovering how to see through these different denominations and their respective doctrines to the essential, underlying truths they all contain to one degree or another.

Let me give you a big clue or hint: read Joseph Campbell. And then go back and re-read Joseph Campbell. And then dwell and ponder for a good long time on what it is he is saying. And then ponder some more--perhaps even several years' worth of this. For it is not until you have fully and deeply understood what it was that he was trying to teach us, that you will begin to approach 'the Truth'. For a general introduction, try the site: www.jcf.org (The web-site of the Joseph Campbell Foundation).

A Translation From the Old English I Made at the Age of Twenty-Five

2005-06-09T18:47:00.000-07:00

It is "Pope Gregory and the English Slave Boys," from an Anglo-Saxon version of the Venerable Bede's original Latin version of Book II, Chapter 1 of his Ecclesiastical History of the English People. After my translation, I will include another English translation (not by me) for comparison, and then the Latin original. I was unfortunately unable to easily find an online text of the Anglo-Saxon version from which I made my translation, or I would have included it here also.

In 1988, when I first made my translation, I used the Anglo-Saxon version because Latin at that time was too difficult for me to be able to attempt a translation. I was at that time more familiar with the Anglo-Saxon language. I will not now vouch for the complete accuracy of my translation; indeed, I have not even looked at it for many years, until now, nor compared it with either the Latin original, the Anglo-Saxon gloss, nor even any other English translations. So I presently have really no idea how well or poorly a job I did then. You be the judge.
________________________________

My own translation (dated Nov. 6, 1988):

It is not for us, then, to try to silence the fame and notoriety of the story which is told us by our elders concerning the blessed Gregory [and his encounter with the English slave boys]. For this cause did men greatly wonder at him, that he displayed such an eager interest in these boys, who were slaves taken from among our own kindred.

They say that on a certain day, there came to Rome new traders from Britain, who also brought with them many and various slaves and chattels for to sell in the markets. There also came at that time many to buy of the things which were brought. It then happened that Pope Gregory (among the many others) also went thither, and chanced to see, among the many other goods and chattels for sale, several beautiful boys--boys with noble, pure hair, and fair and white bodies.

As soon as he saw and beheld them, he immediately stopped and asked where they were from. A man answered and said that they were brought from Britain's island, and also informed the Pope that the rest of the people of that far-off island looked like these particular boys. After which, Pope Gregory inquired whether those same people were Christian--they who, unbeknownst to him, were yet Pagan. A man answered him and said that they were still heathen. At that reply, Pope Gregory swore strongly in his heart, and exclaimed: "Welaway! That is very sad--that such wondrously fair lives and such light and beautiful boys should be the property of the Dark Prince!"

Then he asked what the name of the people was from whom they came. A man answered and said that they were called 'Angles'. Whereupon Pope Gregory immediately remarked: "It is meet that they should be called so, for they certainly have the most angel-like of visages, and also such forms as would befit wards of heaven."

Then he questioned still further, and said: "What are the particular tribe called from whom these boys were taken?" Then answered him a man and said that they were named 'Dere'. Quoth Pope Gregory: "Well it is that they are called Dere--that is: 'de ira eruti' [from wrath saved]; they should be saved from the destruction of God's wrath, and called to Christ's mercy."

Then he went on, and asked what their king was called. And a man answered him and said that he was called 'Alle'. And then the Pope continued his game of sporting with his words by making puns on the names, and said: "Alle--Alleluia! That name is well-befitting a king of such people as these--that thus the praise and glory of God our Creator should be sung in those parts."

______________________________

(Here follows another English translation for comparison:)

Nor is the account of St. Gregory, which has been handed down to us by the tradition of our ancestors, to be passed by in silence, in relation to his motives for taking such interest in the salvation of our nation. It is reported, that some merchants, having just arrived at Rome on a certain day, exposed many things for sale in the marketplace, and abundance of people resorted thither to buy: Gregory himself went with the rest, and, among other things, some boys were set to sale, their bodies white, their countenances beautiful, and their hair very fine. Having viewed them, he asked, as is said, from what country or nation they were brought? and was told, from the island of Britain, whose inhabitants were of such personal appearance. He again inquired whether those islanders were Christians, or still involved in the errors of paganism? and was informed that they were pagans. Then fetching a deep sigh from the bottom of his heart, "Alas! what pity," said he, "that the author of darkness is possessed of men of such fair countenances; and that being remarkable for such graceful aspects, their minds should be void of inward grace." He therefore again asked, what was the name of that nation? and was answered, that they were called Angles. "Right," said he, for they have an Angelic face, and it becomes such to be co-heirs with the Angels in heaven. What is the name," proceeded he, "of the province from which they are brought?" It was replied, that the natives of that province were called Deiri. "Truly are they De ira," said he, "withdrawn from wrath, and called to the mercy of Christ. How is the king of that province called?" They told him his name was Ælla: and he, alluding to the name said, "Hallelujah, the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts."

From ORB's Internet Medieval Sourcebook, Paul Halsall, editor
(at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook.html )

_________________________________

(And here is Bede's Latin original:)

Nec silentio praetereunda opinio, quae de beato Gregorio traditione maiorum ad nos usque perlata est; qua uidelicet ex causa admonitus tam sedulam erga salutem nostrae gentis curam gesserit. Dicunt, quia die quadam cum, aduenientibus nuper mercatoribus, multa uenalia in forum fuissent conlata, multi ad emendum confluxissent, et ipsum Gregorium inter alios aduenisse, ac uidisse inter alia pueros uenales positos candidi corporis, ac uenusti uultus, capillorum quoque forma egregia. Quos cum aspiceret, interrogauit, ut aiunt, de qua regione uel terra essent adlati. Dictumque est, quia de Brittania insula, cuius incolae talis essent aspectus. Rursus interrogauit, utrum idem insulani Christiani, an paganis adhuc erroribus essent inplicati. Dictum est, quod essent pagani. At ille, intimo ex corde longa trahens suspiria: ‘Heu, pro dolor!’ inquit, ‘quod tam lucidi uultus homines tenebrarum auctor possidet, tantaque gratia frontispicii mentem ab interna gratia uacuam gestat!’ Rursus ergo interrogauit, quod esset uocabulum gentis illius. Responsum est, quod Angli uocarentur. At ille: ‘Bene,’ inquit; ‘nam et angelicam habent faciem, et tales angelorum in caelis decet esse coheredes. Quod habet nomen ipsa prouincia, de qua isti sunt adlati?’ Responsum est, quod Deiri uocarentur idem prouinciales. At ille: ‘Bene,’ inquit, ‘Deiri; de ira eruti, et ad misericordiam Christi uocati. Rex prouinciae illius quomodo appellatur?’ Responsum est, quod Aelli diceretur. At ille adludens ad nomen ait: ‘Alleluia, laudem Dei Creatoris illis in partibus oportet cantari.’

From the web-site http://thelatinlibrary.com/bede.html

Recent e-mails to and from NPR's "Performance Today" programme

2005-06-08T13:46:00.001-07:00

Subject:
RE: Programme of Tuesday, June 7th, 2005
Date:
Wed, 8 Jun 2005 11:08:44 -0400
From:
"Fred Child" Add to Address Book
To:
revenant1963@yahoo.com

Dear Mr. White,
Thanks for your thoughtful note about Bach and period performance
practice. We're big fans of that approach -- we were hoping to get the
Akademie fur Alte Musik from Berlin to join us in the NPR studios during
their American tour, but they couldn't quite squeeze us into their
schedule. We're always on the lookout for top-notch performances of Baroque
music, and we'll get as many as we can on the air.
All the best,
Fred Child
Host of NPR's Performance Today
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: terrence White <revenant1963@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 08:41:43 -0700 (PDT)
Hi--

You asked for the opinions of your listeners, so here is mine:

I definitely agree that no work from the 18th century (or earlier)
even begins to approach true 'authenticity' unless some serious
efforts are made along the lines of what is popularly
called "period performance" practices.

It is, of course, true (and almost goes without saying) that we
can never really know exactly how any piece of 'old' music truly
sounded. The recording of music, after all, didn't really begin
in earnest until the early 20th century. But this by no means
decides that performers (and conductors!) should simply 'throw in
the towel' and lazily content themselves with modern instruments
and modern performance techniques. Far from it! A great deal is
actually known today about how music was performed in earlier
centuries, and to ignore this sound (and widely-available)
scholarship is nothing but pure, willful blindness and ignorance--
similar to the proverbial 'ostrich burying its head in the sand'.

There is currently a whole world of 'period' music performances,
broadcasts, and recordings existing in Europe, which the vast
majority of (willfully?) ignorant Americans have barely, scarcely
begun to appreciate or explore. (Perhaps this is an example of
continuing colonialism, in that American tastes--or those of any
colony or former colony--lag behind those of the 'mother
countries' by several decades.) American tastes in 'classical'
music, it is plainly obvious, are still in the 1950s (to the
discomfiture of those of us who appreciate and prefer to hear real
music from the earlier centuries--or the closest modern performers
can get to it).

Let us please hear more of this 'period' or 'authentic' early
music! You cannot possibly broadcast enough of it to suit someone
like myself! (Even mid-nineteenth century music can benefit
from 'period performance' practice.)

I only wish Georgia Public Broadcasting would do this as well
(sigh).

Sincerely,

T.J. White
Thomaston, Georgia

e-mail at revenant1963@yahoo.com

Some of my Favourite Thoreau

2005-06-08T13:20:00.000-07:00

Note: Since I consider Thoreau to be one of the most important and formative influences on my life and thinking, it is only right that I include some of my favourite passages of his here.

_________________________

There are from time to time mornings, both in summer and in winter, when especially the world seems to begin anew ... The world has visibly been recreated in the night. Mornings of creation, I call them. In the midst of these marks of a creative energy recently active, while the sun is rising with more than usual splendor, I look back ... for the era of this creation, not into the night, but to a dawn for which no man ever rose early enough. A morning which carries us back beyond the Mosaic creation, where crystallizations are fresh and unmelted. It is the poet's hour. Mornings when men are new born, men who have the seeds of life in them.

Journal, January 26, 1853

But alone in distant woods or fields, in unpretending sproutlands or pastures tracked by rabbits, even in a bleak and, to most, cheerless day, like this, when a villager would be thinking of his inn, I come to myself, I once more feel myself grandly related, and that cold and solitude are friends of mine. I suppose that this value, in my case, is equivalent to what others get by church-going and prayer. I come to my solitary woodland walk as the homesick go home. ... I come out to these solitudes, where the problem of existence is simplfied. I get away a mile or two from the town into the stillness and solitude of nature, with rocks, trees, weeds, snow about me. I enter some glade in the woods, perchance, where a few weeds and dry leaves alone lift themselves above the surface of the snow, and it is as if I had come to an open window. I see out and around myself. ... This stillness, solitude, wildness of nature is a kind of thoroughwort, or boneset, to my intellect. This is what I go out to seek. It is as if I always met in those places some grand, serene, immortal, infinitely encouraging, though invisible, companion, and walked with him.

Journal, January 7, 1857

It is dry, hazy June weather. We are more of the earth, farther from heaven these days. We live in a grosser element. We [are] getting deeper into the mists of earth. Even the birds sing with less vigor and vivacity. The season of hope and promise is past; already the season of small fruits has arrived. The Indian marked the midsummer as the season when berries were ripe. We are a little saddened, because we begin to see the interval between our hopes and their fulfillment. The prospect of the heavens is taken away, and we are presented only with a few small berries.

Journal, June 17, 1854

Flint's Pond! Such is the poverty of our nomenclature. What right had the unclean and stupid farmer, whose farm abutted on this sky water, whose shores he had ruthlessly laid bare, to give his name to it? Some skin-flint, who loved better the reflecting surface of a dollar, or a bright cent, in which he could see his own brazen face; who regarded even the wild ducks which settled in it as trespassers; his fingers grown into crooked and horny talons from the long habit of grasping harpy-like;--so it is not named for me. I go not there to see him nor to hear of him; who never saw it, who never bathed in it, who never loved it, who never protected it, who never spoke a good word for it, nor thanked God that He had made it. Rather let it be named from the fishes that swim in it, the wild fowl or quadrupeds which frequent it, the wild flowers which grow by its shores, or some wild man or child the thread of whose history is interwoven with its own; not from him who could show no title to it but the deed which a like-minded neighbor or legislature gave him,--him who thought only of its money value; whose presence perchance cursed all the shore, who exhausted the land around it, and would fain have exhausted the waters within it; who regretted only that it was not English hay or cranberry meadow,--there was nothing to redeem it, forsooth, in his eyes,--and would have drained and sold it for the mud at its bottom. It did not turn his mill, and it was no privilege to him to behold it. I respect not his labors, his farm where everything has its price, who would carry the landscape, who would carry his God, to market, if he could get anything for him; who goes to market for his god as it is; on whose farm nothing grows free, whose fields bear no crops, whose meadows no flowers, whose trees no fruit, but dollars; who loves not the beauty of his fruits, whose fruits are not ripe for him till they are turned to dollars. Give me the poverty that enjoys true wealth.

Walden, 1854

(Note: I have always preferred to restate that last phrase as: "Give me the true wealth that poverty brings"--it seems so much more in the spirit of Thoreau's personality and life. TJW)

For many years I was self-appointed inspector of snow storms and rain storms, and did my duty faithfully; surveyor, if not of highways, then of forest paths and all across-lot routes, keeping them open, and ravines bridged and passable at all seasons, where the public heel had testified to their utility.

I have looked after the wild stock of the town, which gives a faithful herdsman a good deal of trouble by leaping fences; and I have had an eye to the unfrequented nooks and corners of the farm; though I did not always know whether Jonas or Solomon worked in a particular field to-day; that was none of my business. I have watered the red huckleberry, the sand cherry and the nettle tree, the red pine and the black ash, the white grape and the yellow violet, which might have withered else in dry seasons.

Walden, 1854

Finding that my fellow-citizens were not likely to offer me any room in the court-house, or any curacy or living any where else, but I must shift for myself, I turned my face more exclusively than ever to the woods, where I was better known.

Walden, 1854

What should we think of the shepherd's life if his flocks always wandered to higher pastures than his thoughts?

Every morning was a cheerful invitation to make my life of equal simplicity, and I may say innocence, with Nature herself. I have been as sincere a worshipper of Aurora as the Greeks. I got up early and bathed in the pond; that was a religious exercise, and one of the best things which I did. They say that characters were engraven on the bathing tub of king Tching-thang to this effect: "Renew thyself completely each day; do it again, and again, and forever again." I can understand that. Morning brings back the heroic ages. I was as much affected by the faint hum of a mosquito making its invisible and unimaginable tour through my apartment at earliest dawn , when I was sitting with door and windows open, as I could be by any trumpet that ever sang of fame. It was Homer's requiem; itself an Iliad and Odyssey in the air, singing its own wrath and wanderings. There was something cosmical about it; a standing advertisement, till forbidden, of the everlasting vigor and fertility of the world. The morning, which is the most memorable season of the day, is the awakening hour. Then there is least somnolence in us; and for an hour, at least, some part of us awakes which slumbers all the rest of the day and night.

Walden, 1854

Some of my pleasantest hours were during the long rain storms in the spring or fall, which confined me to the house for the afternoon as well as the forenoon, soothed by their ceaseless roar and pelting; when an early twilight ushered in a long evening in which many thoughts had time to take root and unfold themselves. In those driving northeast rains which tried the village houses so, when the maids stood ready with mop and pail in front entries to keep the deluge out, I sat behind my door in my little house, which was all entry, and thoroughly enjoyed its protection. In one heavy thunder shower the lightning struck a large pitch-pine across the pond, making a very conspicuous and perfectly regular spiral groove from top to bottom, an inch or more deep, and four or five inches wide, as you would groove a walking-stick. I passed it again the other day, and was struck with awe on looking up and beholding that mark, now more distinct than ever, where a terrific and resistless bolt came down out of the harmless sky eight years ago. Men frequently say to me, "I should think you would feel lonesome down there, and want to be nearer to folks, rainy and snowy days and nights especially." I am tempted to reply to such,--This whole earth we inhabit is but a point in space. How far apart, think you, dwell the two most distant inhabitants of yonder star, the breadth of whose disk cannot be appreciated by our instruments? Why should I feel lonely? is not our planet in the Milky Way? This which you put to me seems to me not to be the most important question. What sort of space is that which separates a man from his fellows and makes him solitary? I have found that no exertion of the legs can bring two minds much nearer to one another. What do we want most to dwell near to? Not to many men surely, the depot, the post-office, the bar-room, the meeting-house, the school-house, the gorcery, Beacon Hill, or the Five Points, where men most congregate, but to the perennial source of our life, whence in all our experience we have found that to issue, as the willow stands near the water and sends out its roots in that direction. This will vary with different natures, but this is the place where a wise man will dig his cellar. ...

Walden, 1854

The indescribable innocence and beneficence of Nature,--of sun and wind and rain, of summer and winter,--such health, such cheer, they afford forever! and such sympathy have they ever with our race, that all Nature would be affected, and the sun's brightness fade, and the winds would sigh humanely, and the clouds rain tears, and the woods shed their leaves and put on mourning in midsummer, if any man should ever for a just cause grieve. Shall I not have intelligence with the earth? Am I not partly leaves and vegetable mould myself?

Walden, 1854

After a still winter night I awoke with the impression that some question had been put to me, which I had been endeavoring in vain to answer in my sleep, as what--how--when--where? But there was dawning Nature, in whom all creatures live, looking at my broad windows with serene and satisfied face, and no question on her lips. I awoke to an unanswered question, to Nature and daylight. The snow lying deep on the earth dotted with young pines, and the very slope of the hill on which my house is placed, seemed to say, Forward! Nature puts no question and answers none which we mortals ask. She has long ago taken her resolution. "O Prince, our eyes contemplate with admiration and transmit to the soul the wonderful and varied spectacle of this universe. The night veils without doubt a part of this glorious creation; but day comes to reveal to us this great work, which extends from earth even into the plains of the ether."

Walden, 1854

[In the last days of Thoreau's life, when he was already an invalid confined indoors,] ... Edmund Hosmer told him of seeing a spring robin, Thoreau replied, "Yes, This is a beautiful world; but I shall see a fairer." He was greatly moved by the attentions of his friends and neighbors. He "came to feel very differently toward people," one of them reported, "and said if he had known he wouldn't have been so offish."

The devotion of his friends [said his sister Sophia] was most rare and touching; his room was made fragrant by the gift of flowers from young and old; fruit of every kind which the season afforded, and game of all sorts was sent him. It was really pathetic [i.e., greatly moving] the way in which the town was moved to minister to his comfort. Total strangers sent grateful messages, remembering the good he had done for them. All this attention was fully appreciated and very gratifying to Henry; he would sometimes say, "I should be ashamed to stay in this world after so much had been done for me, I could never repay my friends." ...

When he learned that some boys in the neighborhood had been robbing birds' nests, he requested that they be called into his sickroom and asked them if they knew "what a wail of sorrow and anguish their cruelty had sent all over the fields and through the woods." ...

[Yet,] When Thoreau learned that some of the boys of the neighborhood had brought him some game to eat, he asked, "Why did you not invite them in? I want to thank them for so much they are bringing me," ...

In his last illness [recalled a child of the neighborhood] it did not occur to us that he would care to see us, but his sister told my mother that he watched us from the window as we passed, and said: "Why don't they come to see me? I love them as if they were my own." After that we went often, and he always made us so welcome that we liked to go. I remember our last meetings with as much pleasure as the old playdays. ...

During his long illness [said Sophia] I never heard a murmur escape him, or the slightest wish expressed to remain with us; his perfect contentment was truly wonderful. None of his friends seemed to realize how very ill he was, so full of life and good cheer did he seem. One friend, as if by way of consolation, said to him, "Well, Mr. Thoreau, we must all go." Henry replied, "When I was a very little boy I learned that I must die, and I set that down, so of course I am not disappointed now. Death is as near to you as it is to me."

Some of his more orthodox friends and relatives tried to prepare him for death, with but little satisfaction to themselves. When an old friend of the family asked "how he stood affected toward Christ," he replied that "a snow-storm was more to him than Christ." When his aunt asked him if he had made his peace with God, he answered, "I did not know that we had ever quarrelled, Aunt." ...

He did not lose his sense of humor. He told Sanborn that whenever his corpulent, full-faced aunt came to his chamber door to inquire about his welfare, he thought her to be "the rising full moon." When someone commented how little his hair had grayed, even in his illness, he replied: "I have never had any trouble in all my life, or only when I was about fourteen; then I felt pretty bad a little while on account of my sins, but no trouble since that I know of. That must be the reason why my hair doesn't turn gray faster. But there is Blake; he is gray as a rat." ...

[When his time to leave finally came] his mother, sister, and his Aunt Louisa watched, his breathing grew fainter and fainter, and without the slightest struggle he died at nine o'clock. Sophia said, "I feel as if something very beautiful had happened,--not death."

From American Heritage, Vol. XIV, No.1 (Dec. 1962), pp.106-112

Walt Whitman's Self-Describ'd Philosophy

2005-06-04T11:13:00.000-07:00

(As cull'd from several of his 'songs'):

__________________________

"I believe in the flesh and the appetities ... Copulation is no more rank to me than death is. ..."
[Song of Myself, 24]

"[I am] turbulent, fleshy, sensual, eating, drinking and breeding ..."
[ibid.]

"Through me forbidden voices,/Voices of sexes and lusts, voices veil'd and I remove the veil,/
Voices indecent by me clarified and transfigured. ..."
[ibid.]

"Voices of ... wombs and of the father-stuff. ..."
[ibid.]

"O admirers, praise not me--compliment not me--you make me wince,/I see what you do not--I know what you do not./Inside these breast-bones I lie smutch'd and choked,/Beneath this face that appears so impassive hell's tides continually run,/Lusts and wickedness are acceptable to me,/I walk with delinquents with passionate love,/I feel I am of them--I belong to those convicts and prostitutes myself,/And henceforth I will not deny them--for how can I deny myself?"
["You Felons on Trial in Courts," from Autumn Rivulets]

"The soldier camp'd or upon the march is mine,/on the night ere the pending battle many seek me, and I do not fail them, ..."
[Song of Myself, 47, emphasis supplied]

"My lovers ... coming naked to me at night. ..."
[ibid., 45]

"The boy I love, the same becomes a man not through derived/power, but in his own right, ... [He is] wicked rather than virtuous out of conformity or fear. ..."
[ibid., 47]

"I do not envy the generals,/Nor the President in his Presidency, nor the rich in his great house,/But when I hear of the brotherhood of lovers ... How together through life, through dangers, odium, unchanging,/long and long,/Through youth and through middle and old age, how unfaltering, how affectionate and faithful they were,/Then I am pensive--I hastily walk away fill'd with the bitterest envy."
[from Calamus]

"I am he that aches with amorous love;/Does the earth gravitate? does not all matter, aching, attract all matter?/So the body of me to all I meet or know."
["I Am He That Aches With Love," from Children of Adam]

"O you whom I often and silently come where you are that I may be with you,/As I walk by your side or sit near, or remain in the same room with you,/Little you know the subtle electric fire that for your sake is playing within me."
["O You Whom I Often And Silently Come," from Calamus]

"A glimpse through an interstice caught,/Of a crowd of workmen and drivers in a bar-room around the stove/late of a winter night, and I unremark'd seated in a corner,/Of a youth who loves me and whom I love, silently approaching,/and seating himself near, that he may hold me by the hand,/A long while amid the noises of coming and going,/of drinking and oath and smutty jest,/There we two, content, happy in being together, speaking little, perhaps not a word."
["A Glimpse," from Calamus]

"O tan-faced prairie-boy,/Before you came to camp came many a welcome gift,/Praises and presents came and nourishing food, till at last among the recruits,/You came, taciturn, with nothing to give--we but look'd on each other,/When lo! more than all the gifts of the world you gave me."
["O Tan-Faced Prairie-Boy," from Drum-Taps]

"Sometimes with one I love I fill myself with rage for fear I effuse/unreturn'd love,/But now I think there is no unreturn'd love, the pay is certain one way/or another, (I loved a certain person ardently and my love was not return'd,/Yet out of that I have written these songs.)"
["Sometimes With One I Love," from Calamus]

"Recorders ages hence,/Come, I will take you down underneath this impassive exterior,/I will tell you what to say of me,/Publish my name and hang up my picture as that of the tenderest lover, ... Who was not proud of his songs, but of the measureless ocean of love within him, and freely pour'd it forth. ..."
["Recorders Ages Hence," from Calamus; emphasis supplied]

"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable,/I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world. ..."
[Song of Myself, 52]

"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./Dear camerado! I confess I have urged you onward with me, and still urge you, without the least idea what is our/destination, or whether we shall be victorious, or utterly quell'd and/defeated."
["As I Lay with my Head in Your Lap Camerado," from Drum Taps]

"Nor will my poems do good only, they will do just as much evil, perhaps more. ..."
["Whoever You Are Holding Me Now in Hand," from Calamus]

________________________

"Divine am I inside and out .../If I worship one thing more than another it shall be the spread of my/own body, or any part of it. ..."
[Song of Myself, 24]

"My rendezvous is appointed, it is certain,/The Lord will be there and wait till I come on perfect terms,/The great Camerado, the lover true for whom I pine will be there. ..."
[ibid., 45]

"I will accept nothing which all cannot have their counterpart of on the same terms ..."
[ibid., 24]

"Whoever degrades another degrades me,/And whatever is done or said returns at last to me ..."
[ibid.]

"the soul is not more than the body, ... And ... the body is not more than the soul. ..."
[ibid., 48]

"And nothing, not [even] God, is greater to me than one's self is. ..."
[ibid.]

"And you or I pocketless of a dime may purchase the pick of the earth ..."
[ibid.]

"And there is no trade or employment but the young man following it/may become a hero. ..."
[ibid.]

"And I say to any man or woman, Let your soul stand cool and composed before a million universes. ..."
[ibid.]

"All forces have been steadily employ'd to complete and delight me. ..."
[ibid., 44]

___________________________

"No friend of mine takes his ease in my chair,/I have no chair, no church, no philosophy. ..."
[Song of Myself, 46]

"He most honors my style who learns under it to destroy the teacher. ..."
[ibid., 47]

"I teach straying from me, yet who can stray from me? ..."
[ibid.]

"If you would understand me go to the heights or water-shore,/The nearest gnat is an explanation, and a drop or motion of waves a key,/The maul, the oar, the hand-saw, second my words. ..."
[ibid.]

"My signs are a rain-proof coat, good shoes, and a staff cut from the woods, ..."
[ibid., 46]

"The young mechanic is closest to me, he knows me well,/The woodman that takes his axe and jug with him shall take me with/him all day,/The farm-boy ploughing in the field feels good at the sound of my/voice,/In vessels that sail my words sail. I go with fishermen and seamen and/love them, ..."
[ibid., 47]

"I swear I will never again mention love or death inside a house,/And I swear I will never translate myself at all, only to him or her who/privately stays with me in the open air. ..."
[ibid.]

"No shutter'd room or school can commune with me,/But roughs and little children better than they. ..."
[ibid.]

__________________________

"Let judges and criminals be transposed--let the prison-keepers be/put in prison--let those that were prisoners take the keys. ..."
["Transpositions," from Autumn Rivulets]

"This is what you should do: love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, ... re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss what insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem."

[Preface, Leaves of Grass, 1855 edition; emphasis supplied]

___________________________

Editorial comment by T.J. White:

Do you understand what he is saying here? Do you UNDERSTAND WHAT HE IS SAYING HERE????!!!!! If you think you do, the chances are good that you do not.

You should go back and re-read, not just the excerpts I have included here, but his entire corpus, until you can contact me via this web-site, and say to me: "Yes, I finally know. ..."

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT--CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT!!!

There is nobody in this life--living or dead--who can teach you more than Whitman can, if you will let him. (Not even Nietzsche, though he, too, comes very close: Nietzsche is simply too obfuscating, though he can be comprehended by one whose mind has been prepared.)

But in order for Whitman to succeed in this teaching endeavour, you must first free your mind of all previous prejudices and opinions; you must be free to follow his mind wherever he goes. And if you do, you will be amazed and astounded where he leads you--through himself and the entire world and the whole universe, indeed--right back to yourself (which is really his own self also; or in other words--"God").

It is a profound mistake to think of Whitman's writings as "just poetry." The person who does so entirely misses the point. Yes, Whitman expresses his thoughts in a most sublime, beautiful, poetic manner, but that is only his means--not his purpose. Whitman was really the first and greatest of our cosmologists--if you can understand the true depth of that term--he was a shuffling, unshaven, disshevelled, wandering man we today would basically call "homeless", and yet a man who somehow had the wisdom of Socrates and the knowledge of the secrets of the Universe.

"He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear. ..."

Campbell on Society's "Outsiders"

2005-06-01T11:52:00.000-07:00

The following excerpt is included here because of its deep relevance for myself and the overall theme and purpose of this web-site. It is Joseph Campbell [1904-1987] in The Power of Myth, in conversation with journalist Bill Moyers:

_________________________

Moyers: Why is a myth different from a dream?

Campbell: Oh, because a dream is a personal experience of that deep, dark ground that is the support of our conscious lives, and a myth is the society's dream. The myth is the public dream and the dream is the private myth. If your private myth, your dream, happens to coincide with that of the society, you are in good accord with your group. If it isn't, you've got an adventure in the dark forest ahead of you.

Moyers: So if my private dreams are in accord with the public mythology, I'm more likely to live healthily in that society. But if my private dreams are out of step with the public--

Campbell: --you'll be in trouble. If you're forced to live in that system, you'll be a neurotic.

Moyers: But aren't many visionaries and even leaders and heroes close to the edge of neuroticism?

Campbell: Yes, they are.

Moyers: How do you explain that?

Campbell: They've moved out of the society that would have protected them, and into the dark forest, into the world of fire, of original experience. Original experience has not been interpreted for you, and so you've got to work out your life for yourself. Either you can take it or you can't. You don't have to go far off the interpreted path to find yourself in very difficult situations. The courage to face the trials and to bring a whole new body of possibilities into the field of interpreted experience for other people to experience--that is the hero's deed. ...

[pages 40-41]

_________________________

Editorial commentary by T.J. White:

What Campbell was referring to here (the visionary human being who, being forced to live in a society which either does not accept him or his radically-different view of the world, or vastly undervalues or discounts the same, is thus forced to become neurotic in the expression of his central, core being) was already discussed by both Nietzsche and Fromm--in excerpts already included in this very web-site. For reference, these originals can be found at "Twilight of the Idols", 45, [for the Nietzsche; also, less directly, at "Beyond Good and Evil", 212, and "The Antichrist", preface, "Revaluation of All Values"], and "Escape From Freedom" [for the Fromm].

Suffice it for me to say that I know very well, from personal experience, exactly what Campbell, Nietzsche, and Fromm were referring to. I am just such a person as the type they were discussing (for better or worse).

2005-05-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

Always having to explain myself ... (ca. 2001)

2005-05-28T09:42:00.000-07:00

The author in a pensive mood, ca. 2002

Excerpts from some e-mails to a Professor of Biblical Studies (a friend of mine)

2005-05-24T16:05:00.000-07:00

Note: portions in italics and within brackets are later editorial additions.

May 2nd, 2005

Greetings:

Unfortunately I haven't much time right now, but I did want to acknowledge receipt of the [Derek Prince] tape you were kind enough to send, and to say that I have already listened to it. The earlier parts thereof, in which he discusses his childhood and youth in England, I found quite interesting, but more from a biographical standpoint, as I myself had two maternal grandparents from that place. The parts toward the end, where he discusses his views on 'religion' I found (I must confess) rather tedious, since I have heard similar things most of my life, and have long since either discounted, or accounted for, the same.

Do I consider him my intellectual equal (to re-state your question to me)? More than that; I would hasten to say that he is probably my intellectual superior. And I would say that the same may even be true about yourself as well. Would I be qualified to hold (or capable of competently exercising) the jobs which he has held? Or the jobs which you hold? Perhaps, and again, perhaps not. I have never yet been in any such position, and I therefore do not feel that I am in any position to competently answer such questions (though I would like to know); and I am not, in any event, in the business of comparisons, nor do I think it meet to so be. My main response or criticism to this line of questioning is that however intellectual a person may be (or despite ever so many degrees he may proudly possess) he does not necessarily have a monopoly on truth or correctness in opinions, any more than the rest of "labouring humanity" (James Allen's words).

Nor do the 'uneducated' (or more precisely, the 'self-educated'; I must needs correct myself there) necessarily or always fare worse than their sheepskin-adorned brethren; one need only think of the example of self-educated (and positively brilliant) men such as Abraham Lincoln, or, more recently, famed mythologist and scholar Joseph Campbell, to refute that thesis. And (as you will surely know as well as I) there are many more such examples we may draw.

It would be easy for the wider world to quickly and tidily dismiss me because of my relative lack of formal education or academic position (without having actually read what I have to say). But this, I believe, would be a profound mistake, and a disservice, not just to myself, but to themselves as well (to borrow a similar train of thought from John Stuart Mill), in that they would be depriving themselves of the "opportunity of exchanging error for truth," should I happen to prove correct in any of my points.

And in any case, most of the points I make were not even my own to begin with. Mostly I have only learned from others far wiser and more knowledgable than me. If I possess any great virtue, I believe, it is that I have been a good, thorough, and attentive a student. And that is where any native intelligence I possess will have come into good service.

It was good to see you in person again yesterday, though under sad and regrettable circumstances. I wish we had had greater opportunity to really converse, which is my ever-continuing delight and pleasure.

Remember, in any case, the parting words I left you with yesterday: that "Amor vincit omnia" [Love conquers all]. "Love never faileth ..." (1 Cor.13, et al.) My favourite verse from scripture is undoubtedly 1 John 4:7-8, a verse you will no doubt know. The Bible is still one of my most favourite books to read and study--even now. And I try to be (and like to think of myself as) a spiritual human being--filled with God's Divine and Holy LOVE. But I think Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass to be of at least equal importance to the Bible. Ditto for the Gnostic Gospel According to Thomas.

As we agreed yesterday, we are both busy with careers, and this discussion may take some time. Nevertheless, I look forward to future opportunities (including perhaps sitting in on classes and/or corresponding with your students). Who will learn the more--I or they? (I speak honestly here, not capriciously.) I think in any case the learning will certainly occur on all sides. But I also think (and hope) that they will definitely sharpen their minds against my foil.

Finally, is it a sin to be self-possessed or self-confident?--provided it does not cross the border into real lack of humility? I think not.

With great respect ...

T.J. White

_______________________________

May 20th, 2005

Dear [name withheld],

You have indeed given me a lot to chew on. Probably I could spend the next year or more trying to adequately respond to it all. I will answer honestly right away that most of what you refer to I have not yet had the pleasure of actually reading first-hand (though I would truly love such an opportunity)--remember, I have had to mostly educate myself, due to my inability to get my foot in the door of any academic institutions lately. I have at least HEARD of most of it, however, so I'm not completely ignorant.

As to the finer points of most of the "isms" you mention, again, I have to admit that I presently lack the scholar's (or specialist's) knowledge of most of them.

You will surely (and rightly) say that, that being the case, how can I possibly maintain the position I do? How can I claim to know that the traditional "Christian" version of facts is false, and a radical new, reinterpretation of the historical evidence is somehow correct? To put it in blunter terms: how do I seriously believe that 99% of the Christian world can be mistaken, and only 1% of historians and scholars correct?

Well, without getting into specific detail RIGHT NOW (which would indeed take a lot of time) I will say this:

I readily perceive that the world at large is mostly made up of blind fools--the blind leading the blind, as it were. I put no faith or trust in the opinions or beliefs of majorities, simply by virtue of the fact that they ARE the majority. I require greater proofs than that. History amply demonstrates, it seems to me, that on many past occasions, the majority have simply been dead wrong about some very important matters--the roundness of the earth, the earth (or even the sun) being the center of the universe, for example. They are quite capable of being equally wrong about other matters which are now commonly accepted as fact. This is at least a logical or theoretical possibility, which I believe you also admitted to me when we first met.

I put much greater weight or credence on the studies and honest integrity of objective SCHOLARSHIP (as much as it is possible to BE objective) than I do on masses of largely under-educated (or even uneducated) AVERAGE JOES. And that is precisely what the vast, overwhelming majority of "Christians" are. (Or any large group of human beings, for that matter.) Their opinions and beliefs are no more to be relied on than a lunatic's, because no more AUTOMATICALLY subject to being correct in every important detail.

[There are simply far too many unchallenged, unexamined assumptions inherent in traditional "Christianity"--far too many for any true PHILOSOPHER (or lover of truth) to let them pass unnoticed or unchallenged, anyway. Well, many years ago, I set myself the task of particularly examining those automatic assumptions. And upon closer scrutiny--lo and behold!--most of them turned out to be false and groundless--i.e., no longer worthy of being believed or followed. Traditional "Christianity" then--as I have expressed elsewhere--is, in my view, merely a fragile house of cards awaiting the faintest breath of wind to knock it down forever. The truly amazing miracle is that it has lasted as long as it has (and that it moreover kept the mind of Western man enslaved in the darkness of ignorance for nearly two thousand years!)]

And it seems to me (though there is by no means unanimous agreement yet) that a general concensus is emerging in the world of Christian scholarship concerning the existence or "reality" of Jesus, and "his" and Christianity's relationship to GENERIC "Gnosticism" and "Neo-Platonism" and the whole "Mystery Religion Tradition". (And I stress that word "generic") As you know much better than I, there were many branches or offshoots within "Gnosticism" itself, which perverted (for lack of a better word) the original doctrine away from its roots (which were really Neo-Platonism).

I am an intelligent, rational thinker (an empiricist, really). You yourself have admitted this. Unquestionably, [however,] I lack much of the finer detail of education which you and many others possess (and I would like to acquire it, too).

In other words, there are many pieces of the jigsaw puzzle which I do not possess. But I believe I do possess a fairly accurate idea of the bigger, broader picture of things, based on extrapolating from those few pieces I do possess. And I believe such an extrapolation is not only possible (to an intelligent mind), but not necessarily or automatically subject to complete or grave error. I believe the intelligence God gave me has enabled me to piece together those pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of life that HAVE managed to fall within my grasp, and moreover to form with them an astonishing and unexpected picture (a picture almost completely at odds with what I previously thought, and yet a picture which does not at all deny reason or violate or ignore real historical evidence).

The truly remarkable thing, I believe, is that I have been able to accomplish so much, and go so far, with really so little to start with. This is really, as I've said, an incredible, daring feat of logical, intelligent extrapolation (but based on sound historical evidence and sound scholarship, however). And I realize that, based on this fact alone--the fact that I, a man of limited education and limited scholarship--have dared to challenge one of Western Civilization's most sacred tenets, and say that I am right and the other 99% is wrong, will set me up for serious challenges and criticism, not to mention ridicule. I know all of this. Many of the scholars--"Christian" or otherwise--who are presently saying the same thing as I, but with much greater scholarly weight than I, are also facing the same denial, ridicule, and abuse. I consider it an honor to be placed in their company. I had rather be correct than popular, any day.

My agreement with Gnosticism is on a general, non-specific level mostly. If you get down to the level of specific, minute beliefs or doctrines, I probably would disagree with most of them. Where I do agree is in their general thrust and agreements with one another, and with the main argument of "Christianity" itself (which is "Love God" and "Love thy neighbour as thyself," etc.)

I do own the Gospel of Thomas, and a few other such texts--but not nearly as many as I would wish.

I do consider myself a (sort of) "pneumatikos". (As you will know much better than I, the "oi" ending is plural. I'm just letting you know that I know.) By this I mean one who has inhaled the Breath of Spirit, which brings enlightenment, or "Gnosis".

I affirm neither the deity nor the humanity of "Jesus". From the historical evidence I've seen, I consider "him" to have been an ancient, perennial MYTHOLOGICAL figure or personality (in the same vein as Zeus or Apollo) appearing in different cultures and places under various names and/or guises (such as Mithras, Bacchus, Orpheos, Osiris, etc.) but underneath all the various masks, basically the same general god-man who dies and is resurrected. (See Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God", for example.) The "Christians" simply came along and gave "him" a new name, which they borrowed from the Hebrews (via the Greeks): "Jesus" "Christ".

The "Jesus" name (as you will know) is simply a Greek form (and a contrived one at that) of the Hebrew name "Joshua" or "Yeshua"; whereas the "Christ" name or title is merely a literal Greek translation of the Hebrew word which we know as "Messiah" ("the Annointed One"). But I'm not telling you anything new there, am I?

"Have [I] given thought to what is at stake in [my] quest for truth?" Oh yes, indeed I have. Quite a lot. There were many years at first when I kept on wanting to deny the evidence of my senses (the historical record, that is) simply because it meant that I would be forced to deny my previous beliefs (and I was raised a "Christian"). But ultimately my love of logic and truth, and the weight of undeniable historical evidence won me over.

You call my beliefs "heretical". But I remind you that "Christianity" itself was once considered heresy (and by intelligent people, too).

With respect,
T.J. White

____________________________

May 21st, 2005

Hi--

After thinking much on the matters you presented the other day, some additional thoughts or responses have occurred to me. I hope you will indulge me.

In order for you (or anyone so disposed) to better understand me and how I arrived at the beliefs I now hold, you must first understand a few basic aspects of how I think, or in other words, how I perceive reality or the world.

First of all, my thought processes are most likely a little unusual--i.e., different from most people's. Although an 'official' diagnosis is still lacking (but I'm working on that, though), I now believe that there's a very strong likelihood that I have what is known as Asperger's Syndrome, or High Functioning Autism--i.e., a less-severe form of classic Autism. There is much literature on the subject, easily available on the internet, so I won't rehearse it here. You can easily look it up if you desire. Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen, of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University in England, has devised two separate tests, which, when taken together, provide a pretty good indicator of whether or not a person has Asperger's. These two tests are his "Empathy Quotient Test" and his "Systematizing Quotient Test". I took them both recently. "On average," he says, "most women score about 47 [on the "Empathy Quotient Test"] and most men about 42..."; whereas, says he, "most people with Asperger Syndrome or high-functioning autism score about 20." My score on this test was 6.

As for his "Systematizing Quotient Test", the average scores were 24 for women and about 30 for men. People with Asperger Syndrome (etc.) usually score in a range from 51 to 80. My score on this test was 67. That sounds pretty conclusive to me. (These tests, by the way, are found at the web-site http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/ .)

One central aspect of people with Autism, including Asperger's, is that they tend to be very good at systems--i.e., recognizing patterns, relationships, or systems within what would otherwise appear to most people as either random, unrelated data, or even apparent chaos.
Dr. Michael Fitzgerald, a child psychiatrist at Trinity College, Dublin (Ireland), and author of the recent book, The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger Syndrome and the Arts, says (in this book) that in all likelihood, some very famous and influential people in the fields of the arts, sciences (and even government and politics) had Asperger Syndrome. Among these people (Dr. Fitzgerald claims) are Michelangelo, Lewis Carroll, and Thomas Jefferson. Other famous current or former Asperger 'sufferers' proposed (by other researchers besides Fitzgerald) include Albert Einstein and Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft. (From the web-site http://www.lcmedia.com/mind374.htm .) So you can see (if nothing else) that having Asperger Syndrome, and viewing the world slightly differently from the majority, is certainly nothing to sneeze at.

Now, why do I mention this business here, to you?

It relates to how I was able to develop a radically-different view on the subject of religion, I believe. I have always been good at perceiving relationships, patterns, or discrepancies in, among, and between various belief-systems. This has, I believe, helped me to weed my way through the various errors, half-truths, misunderstandings, and even outright falsehoods, so prevalent in most human belief 'systems'. And, partly because of my limited education (as mentioned in my previous letter), I have studied all these matters from a generalist's perspective, rather than a specialist's. And this is crucially important, I think--not only for perceiving truth generally (for anyone so inclined), but also for accounting for how I was able, despite my lack of specialized knowledge of the literature, to nonetheless 'leapfrog' around or beyond so many well-educated specialists in the fields of theology, philosophy, or comparative religions (to take just a few), and arrive at my present radical revisionist understanding of religion and spirituality.

Famed mythologist, scholar, teacher and writer Joseph Campbell [1904-1987]--one of my most cherished and influential mentors, by the way (though I was never priveleged to meet him personally)--addressed this subject at one point in his 1985-1986 conversations with journalist Bill Moyers (published in their 1988 book, The Power of Myth):

Specialization tends to limit the field of problems that the specialist is concerned with. Now, the person who isn't a specialist, but a generalist like myself, sees something over here that he has learned from one specialist, something over there that he has learned from another specialist--and neither of them has considered the problem of why this occurs here and also there. So the generalist--and that's a derogatory term, by the way, for academics, gets into a range of other problems that are more genuinely human, you might say, than specifically cultural. [page 9]

What Campbell did not say, but which logically follows from what he does say, is that generalists are more likely to see the 'bigger picture', and a more accurate one at that.

I would add that this is because most specialists, by virtue of being burdened with too much specific detail, miss many opportunities of seeing important contributions or parallels from other fields or disciplines which would better enable them to grasp the 'bigger (and more accurate) picture' of reality, or whatever it is that they are studying. I don't for a minute claim that, simply because I happen to disagree with them, most specialists in the subjects of religion (etc.)are therefore dishonest or disingenuous. No! I merely say that not only are they simply mistaken, but that their very specialization itself in their one and only field, their very narrowness of focus, as it were, has in a real sense handicapped and thwarted their very search for truth itself. My disagreement is thus not with them personally (even though I may challenge some of their premises or conclusions), but rather with the very structure of the educational and/or academic system which produced and encourages their commonly-used methods of arriving at truth (or understanding of fact).

__________________

Now, on to a somewhat different topic:

In your recent letter you brought up several specific points, or questions, one of which I would now like to attempt to answer somewhat:

You said, "[m]ost Gnostics embrace either extreme licentiousness or radical ascetism ...[Which is your worldview?]" (I was already aware of this fact), and you then asked a few related questions.

Many would probably call me 'licentious', though I would take issue with this label[ling of ] myself. Many of Spinoza's detractors called him an atheist, but he hotly denied this charge. Yet from his Ethics, we see that his views on 'God' or deity were, at the very least, daringly close to classic atheism. So, was he an atheist or not? I think the answer lies in how he (or we) define the term 'God'. Likewise, am I 'licentious', or not? Again, the answer will lie in how the term is defined. (I address this issue in one of the postings in my web-site, entitled "Spiritual Journey Part Six: The Avatar Speaks", by the way, and I would encourage you to read it if you have the time, because it goes into much greater detail on this topic than I will attempt here.) As for whether or not I think matter to be 'evil'--my answer is basically "no", though this question, too, is addressed in the same article mentioned above (the web-site, for your convenience, is at http://nonconformistsbible.blogspot.com ). Do I believe that there will be a bodily resurrection? No, probably not. But I do believe in the generic form of reincarnation as taught by most Gnostics, Neo-Platonists, Buddhists, and even early Christians such as Origen.

You further ask what it is that I find unacceptable about the Biblical record. My best answer to this question has already been expressed in my web-site, but it is small enough that I will quote it here:

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? (From the posting entitled "Spiritual Journey Part One".)

The Bible contains much that I would classify as folk tales, tribal mythology, morality fables or tales (intended to teach life lessons)--among which are the creation myths in Genesis. (I am certainly not alone in this assessment, either.) Much of it is also quite pointless, useless, and even distracting and misleading.

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 destroy 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.

I don't think that I myself could have possibly stated the case better than that. That is exactly what I also think. I completely agree with Thomas Paine (as digested by Will and Ariel Durant); and this is why I have included this rather lengthy excerpt here.

But as I have also stated above, the Bible contains much of great worth (in my opinion). The difficulty (as I've said) is disentangling that which is good and profitable from that which is useless and even distracting in our search for truth and for things of real spiritual value for our lives. Many of the other postings on my web-site explore these things of value I see in the Bible, so I will not go into all of that here.

Well, I could probably say much more, but I will let this suffice for now.

Once again, I thank you for your gentle indulgence and for your time and thought.

Respectfully,

T.J. White.

A New Version of the "Lord's Prayer" for Our Modern Age

2005-05-12T17:50:00.000-07:00

O Source and Fount of all that exists--
That which is in the inner realm of spirit,
and in the outer realm of physicality--
Father, Mother, Brother, Sister, Friend and Lover,
And much more than these--

May the descriptions and names of you be ever considered sacred!

May knowledge of the oneness and totality of the universe, as well as
actual unity and harmony with the same, come to us all,
as we are ready to receive and partake thereof;

May we be better prepared to receive and partake of this universal oneness and love.

May all that occurs in this universe be ever in harmony with the one totality.

May all of our legitimate and reasonable needs and aspirations be fulfilled--those that do not infringe upon other living beings. And where we must infringe upon other living beings in order to survive, forgive us, we pray, for it is in our nature at this stage of our existence, and we cannot do otherwise.

May tolerance and mercy be extended to us when we wrong others, and our survival is not actually at stake--to the same extent that we ourselves extend that same tolerance and mercy toward others who may wrong us.

May we better accord ourselves into harmony with the universe.

We ask all of this, not that it is not already the case everywhere around us (even if we can't always see it), but rather because we are as yet merely infants in our understanding of things--in our ability to rationally and lovingly deal with each other and with the larger universe.
We also ask these things because the act of asking shows that we are growing in our awareness, and are truly and conscientiously attempting to better accord ourselves into harmony with the universe.

May peace and love reign everywhere and always!

Amen.

T.J. White,
15 August, 1996

Mankind's Paramount Purpose in Life

2005-05-12T17:40:00.001-07:00

Question:

Does God intervene, act, or make any kind of difference in this world, or in the affairs of men?

An Astute Observation:

"Who you are is the difference that God makes ... and that difference is LOVE."

(The "Being of Light" [i.e., "God"], as quoted by Dannion Brinkley in his 1994 book, Saved by the Light, p.25.)

The Answer:

To rephrase Brinkley's quotation, we may say that yes, God does indeed make a difference in this world, but only through us, when we act from Love, because "God is Love". (1 John 4:8)

We are the sometimes semi-sentient, oftimes unconscious agents through whom God acts in this world--making a difference in this world through love and involvement (i.e., compassion):

"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, ..." (Donne)

And the medieval German theologian and mystic known to us today as "Meister Eckhard" also said the following:

"God can no more do without us than we can do without him. ..."

Conclusion:

Believe me, I understand fully the significance of what I am saying here. These ideas are not bandied about lightly. The question is: can mankind accept them?

T.J. White,
12 May, 2005

Some Particularly Disquieting Orwell

2005-05-12T17:22:00.000-07:00

It's not a matter of whether the war is not real or of it is. ...

Victory is not possible.
The war is not meant to be won;
it is meant to be continuous. ...

A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance.
This new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed. ...

In principle, the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation.
The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects, and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. ...

George Orwell (1903-1950),
quoted in Michael Moore's 2004 film, Fahrenheit 9:11

A Few of my Favourite Whitman Quotations

2005-05-07T11:25:00.000-07:00

The little light fades the immense and diaphanous shadows. ...

(Song of Myself, 24)

A morning-glory at my window satisfies me more than the metaphysics of books. ...

(Song of Myself, 24)

All forces have been steadily employ'd to complete and delight me. ...

(Song of Myself, 44)

I am satisfied--I see, dance, laugh, sing; ...

(Song of Myself, 3)

There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now. ...

(Song of Myself, 3)

Behold, I do not give lectures or a little charity,
When I give I give myself. ...

(Song of Myself, 40)

This day before dawn I ascended a hill and look'd at the crowded heaven,
And I said to my spirit When we become the enfolders of those orbs, and the pleasure and knowledge of every thing in them, shall we be fill'd and satisfied then?
And my spirit said, No, we but level that lift to pass and continue beyond. ...

(Song of Myself, 46)

Recorders ages hence,
Come, I will take you down underneath this impassive exterior, I will tell you what to say of me,
Publish my name and hang up my picture as that of the tenderest lover,
The friend the lover's portrait, of whom his friend his lover was fondest,
Who was not proud of his songs, but of the measureless ocean of love within him, and freely pour'd it forth, ...

(from "Calamus")

Campbell's View of Modern Society

2005-04-27T18:13:00.000-07:00

Man should not be in the service of society, society should be in the service of man. When man is in the service of society, you have a monster state, and that's what is threatening the world at this minute. ...

[W]hen you come to the end of one time and the beginning of a new one, it's a period of tremendous pain and turmoil. The threat we feel, and everybody feels--well, there is this notion of Armegeddon coming, you know. ...

Joseph Campbell [1904-1987]

in The Power of Myth (with Bill Moyers),
from conversations recorded in 1985 and 1986.
(Pages 8 and 17)

"One of the Least of These"

2005-04-18T16:57:00.000-07:00

A short collection of scriptures which I find personally very relevant and meaningful.

(N.B., In order to strengthen the relevance, and to increase the readability and comprehension, I have occasionally taken the liberty to modernize some of the archaicisms of the received text, as well as occasionally to expand slightly upon the original text, though not so much as to obscure or thwart the original intent.)

___________________________

Whatever you want people to do to you, that is what you should also do to them, for this is the law and the prophets. ... For if you forgive men their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you your sins; but if you don't forgive men their sins, neither will your Father forgive you your sins. ... (St.Matt.7:12; 6:14-15)

If a man says that he loves God, yet hates his brother, he is a liar: for how can a man truly love God, whom he has never seen, if he fails to love his brother, whom he has seen? And the commandment which God has given us is this: that whoever says he loves God must love his brother also. ... (1 John 4:20-21)

(This is how all men SHOULD act one toward another--obviously. But is it in fact the way most people treat ME? The sad fact of the matter is, that ...)

I am despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, and they hid, as it were, their faces from me; I am despised,and they esteemed me not. ... (Isaiah 53:3)

God has known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: for my adversaries are all before his face. Reproach has broken my heart, and I am full of heaviness; I searched for someone to take pity on me, but there was no one to be found; I searched for comforters, but there were none. ... (Psalm 69:19-20)

Lord, how are they increased who trouble me! Many are they who rise up against me. Many there be who say of my soul, "There is surely no help for HIM from God!" (Psalm 3:1-2)

(And why is this so? Quite simply, because ...)

My delights were with the sons of men [and still are ...] (Proverbs 8:31)

(This, then, is that great and dreadful thing which the people seemingly can never accept in me.)

O you sons of men, how long will you continue to turn my glory into shame? (Psalm 4:2)

[For] I am weary with my groaning; all the night I make my bed to swim; I water my couch with my tears. My eye is consumed because of grief; it waxes old because of all my enemies. ... (Psalm 6:6-7)

My soul, even, is weary of my life; I will leave my complaint upon myself; I will speak out in the bitterness of my soul. I will say to God: do not condemn me, but show me why you judge me this way. Does it seem a good thing to you, to cheapen and oppress me, or to despise the work of your own hands, and to support the schemes of the wicked who seek my destruction? Are your eyes like human eyes? Do even you see only as men see, ... that you should scrutinize my every smallest fault? Surely you know that in my heart of hearts, I am not evil or wicked. ... Remember, I beg you, that it was YOUR hands which made me as the clay; and do you really want to reduce me back to the dust again? YOU clothed me with skin and flesh, and fenced me with bones and sinews; YOU granted me life and favour in the beginning, and have preserved my spirit thus far. ... Why, then, did you ever bring me forth out of the womb, if all you want to do is allow my enemies to destroy me? ... Are not my days few? CEASE THEN! And leave me alone, that I may recover my breath for a short while, before I go from where I shall never return, even to the land of darkness and the shadow of death. ... (Job 10: various)

(My tormenters would do well to remember that their Lord and Saviour himself--whom they CLAIM to follow--said the following:)

Inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me. ... (St.Matt. 25:40)

(In other words, when they treat ME badly, without charity, compassion, or forgiveness, it is exactly the same as if they had treated CHRIST that same way.)

He that is without sin among you--let HIM cast the first stone. ...
(St.John 8:7)

(What should they rather be doing?)

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and whoever loves is born of God, and knows God. Whoever does not love, does not know God, because God is love. ... (1 John 4:7-8)

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another. ... (1 John 3:11)

(And they should further remember that ...)

Judgement without mercy shall be shown [by God] to whoever has shown no mercy to his fellow-men .... (James 2:13)

[And]

Whoever hates his brother is a MURDERER, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. ... (1 John 3:15)

A Critique of "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

2005-04-05T16:45:00.000-07:00

Following are two lengthy excerpts from separate e-mails sent to my favorite Aunt and her husband (my Uncle by marriage), who had presented me with a copy of this book. I had promised that I would faithfully and dutifully read the same, as time and occasion permitted, notwithstanding my own previously-held strong opinions to the contrary.

_____________________

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 ...

I am still trying to plow through "Mere Christianity" as I am able. But I have now read enough so far that I think I can attempt a limited, qualified response. I will attempt a fuller response later when I have actually completed it.

The woman who wrote the foreword (forget her name right now) mentioned that Lewis' book was very much a product of its time, place and audience. And she was definitely right. This book is clearly addressed to an audience of (mainly) servicemen, of average intelligence. Despite Lewis' almost universal reputation as a brilliant "Christian" intellectual, I find nothing intellectually brilliant or sparkling in this book. I have read far deeper probings into the workings of 'God' and Universal Mind in the writings of Nietzsche, Whitman, Thoreau, Schopenhauer, and Joseph Campbell, just to name a few. However, I freely admit that perhaps Lewis had intentionally 'toned down' his thinking for an 'everyman' type of audience, so maybe he was really far more brilliant a mind than this book would indicate.

I myself have also, by the way, already considered, examined (and rejected) most of the points and connections which Lewis makes in this book. I simply don't think he is using sound logic here--as, for example, where he says that if 'God' is a completely, totally 'good' God, he must necessarily hate and abhor all 'evil' 'negative' actions of mankind. Well, I simply disagree. A 'good' God, in my view, if he is to be consonant with what is said about him in scripture, must be so completely 'good' that there is absolutely no 'hatred' or 'negativity' or condemnation in him whatsoever. "God is light," saith the scripture, "and in him is NO DARKNESS AT ALL." Well, I believe that statement, together with its logical corollaries. I will perhaps be able to go into more detail on this (and other related points) later on, when I attempt a more rigorous, exhaustive analysis.

I have no doubt that this book is very popular with a 'Christian' audience. But that is rather like 'preaching to the choir', is it not? Or praising one who helps to prop up a flimsy house of cards. It will not successfully persuade a thinking, intellectually HONEST doubter, still less one who (like myself) actually KNOWS better, who has actually followed the "Yellow Brick Road" to the "Emerald City" and personally seen and witnessed the "little man behind the curtain." It may not be popular or safe or a good idea to stand up in the midst of the crowd and announce that the Emperor has no clothes on, but that is what one must nonetheless do, if one is to be intellectually honest with what one knows to actually be the case.

And that is, after all, only what I am here trying to do--only be intellectually (and spiritually) honest; not offensive--and please try to forgive me if that seems so, but rather, merely honest--forthright--not hesitating or dissembling.

I have a great respect for C.S. Lewis. After all, he commanded a great deal of respect from many other (very respectable) people. So he should deserve at least a basic level thereof from myself as well. But (at least from this one book) he has not moved or persuaded me in the least. I have access to facts and knowledge and ideas which (evidently) Lewis never considered or was even exposed to. And that is sad. Perhaps if he knew what I (and some others) now know, he would have had to recant. But these 'new' facts are not, in fact, really 'new' at all: educated Europeans have known about most of them for many hundreds of years already--among whom was the well-known (and well-done) philosopher Giordano Bruno (murdered by the Church because of his radical beliefs in the year 1600). Shakespeare said it rather well: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Thus would I speak to C.S. Lewis, had I the chance. I think it is intellectually (and spiritually) hazardous to attempt to draw too many firm, unbendable conclusions before all the facts are in; and I think Lewis has done just that. There are clearly a great number of historical and cultural facts (FACTS, mind you) to which he pays no heed at all, or simply was not even aware of (and this is very strange, considering his wide reputation for erudition). Now, of course, I do not presume to possess all the facts, either; merely a great deal more of them than C.S. Lewis apparently did. And these facts lead me to quite different conclusions than those to which Lewis was led.

How I would have loved the opportunity to have discussed these things with him personally! But, as you can see, he himself died the very same year I was born.

Well, enough of this. I have shared this with you, only to show (a) that I am seriously reading and considering this important book, out of respect and deference to you, who were kind enough to give it to me, and (b) as a way of showing you some of the current state of my thinking, which (due to my reclusive nature) not many people at all have ever seen, still less the profound thinkers I would truly love to converse and share ideas with. If I did not have respect for both of you as intelligent, humane people, I would never have ventured any mention (still less any extended discussion) of such topics. "Cast not thy pearls before swine," right? I am usually very careful to keep my ideas veiled and hidden from the average person, since such people would simply not comprehend, and would probably misunderstand and misattribute, most of anything which I could say. Nietzsche did the same thing, by the way, which is why so much of his writing is dense and impenetrable to most people. Like he, I mean my thinking to be unattainable to average minds. Such kinds of people do not usually even appear on my own personal radar screen, except when they may happen to catch my interest as sexual objects. I know that this sounds elitist and chauvinistic, but I don't care; and I don't even try to apologize for it, either. "God made him, and therefore let him pass for a man. ..." (Shakespeare again). ...

Date: 9 Feb 2005 ...

I finally was able to finish the book. Not that it was necessarily any kind of ordeal or 'trial by fire', but rather, that my busy work life made reading time scarce (as you know).

Most of my opinion of Lewis' writing you have already heard, so no need to rehearse that. I would only like to add one thing:

What is perhaps the most famous of the quotations from Sir Isaac Newton (and my favourite one) is this:

I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.

Well, I relate this idea to C.S. Lewis: I say that (in 'Mere Christianity', at least) he has only been 'diverting himself with pebbles and shells'--all the while quite unaware of the "great ocean of truth" all around him the whole time. And I say, moreover, that he was (unfortunately) quite mistaken in his ideas and conclusions regarding those 'pebbles and shells'.

To once again quote Shakespeare (I feel it is appropriate here): "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I may say, once again, that I wish Lewis were alive now, for I should surely love the chance to say these things to him face to face. I would have said to him that I know certain facts (not because I am in any way unique or special, but simply that I happen to be aware of them), which have obviously never entered into either his imagination or lexicon, things which would have FORCED him to completely alter his views, if he was to remain an honest man.

During Sunday School class last Sunday (it may seem strange that I attend, but I do), the youth class was combined with the adult class (due to low attendance in a very small congregation), and I happened to voice several rather controversial points and comments (when have I not?). And after the class, one young man--perhaps around fourteen, but more intelligent than most his age--pulled me aside and said that he had agreed with much (though not all) that I had said. Part of my response to him was to say that we should never, NEVER assume that we have the final word on truth or reality, that to do so shows a lack of humility on our part, among other things. I advised him to always keep an open mind, and be ready at any time to alter his previous views whenever they could be shown (upon sound evidence) to have been erroneous. (Don't know what his Dad thought of my ideas--he heard the whole thing, too.)

This is really a much harder thing to do than it sounds, or than most people realize. What if--for example--a new fact (which seems real and factual, as far as one can tell) nonetheless contradicts most or all of what you previously believed? (And this is certainly VERY possible; this is not a mere vacuous exercise.) What then? Will we (like most people) continue to desperately cling to our previous beliefs--even to the point of denying the rational, factual evidence of our senses?

Well, I for one could never allow myself to do this (I am in love with the truth too much), and thus I find myself where I am now in my stage of beliefs and development. I know that neither of you will probably ever be able to completely agree with everything I'm saying here, and that's okay. I will still love you just the same, and I trust that you will do likewise.

I'm also sure that you could have wished for a rather different response to my having read that book. ... But I have progressed to a point in my understanding and awareness of things--really of all life in general--that I find it very difficult to read anything by anybody these days, without (almost automatically and unintentionally) being able to SEE RIGHT THROUGH whatever it is that that person is saying. Surely this is a by-product of the keenly-probing, intelligent mind God gave me. And I think you will here agree that no-one should ever apologize for God's many and wonderful GIFTS--not even those which may separate us from most of the human race, or from all that is 'normal' or 'popular' or 'commonly-believed'.

Well, enough for now. Perhaps I may have (once again) overstated my case. I hope for your continued gentle indulgence, as well as your continued friendship and goodwill. ...

From the Chhandogya Upanishad (c.ninth century BCE)

2005-03-26T10:55:00.000-08:00

When [in the world] one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, recognizes nothing else: that is [participation in] the Infinite. But when one sees, hears, and recognizes only otherness: that is smallness. The Infinite is the immortal. That which is small is mortal.

But sir, that Infinite: upon what is it established?

Upon its own greatness--or rather, not upon greatness. For by greatness people here understand cows and horses, elephants and gold, slaves, wives, mansions and estates. That is not what I mean; not that! For in that context everything is established on something else.

This Infinite of which I speak is below. It is above. It is to the west, to the east, to the south, to the north. It is, in fact, this whole world. And accordingly, with respect to the notion of ego (ahamkaradesa): I also am below, above, to the west, to the east, to the south, and to the north. I, also, am this whole world.

Or again, with respect to the Self (atman): The Self (the Spirit) is below, above, to the west, to the east, to the south, and to the north. The Self (the Spirit), indeed, is the whole world.

Verily, the one who sees this way, thinks and understands this way, takes pleasure in the Self, delights in the Self, dwells with the Self and knows bliss in the Self; such a one is autonomous (svaraj), moving through all the world at pleasure (kamacara). Whereas those who think otherwise are ruled by others (anya-rajan), know but perishable pleasures, and are moved about the world against their will (akamacara).

(24-25)

Just as those who do not know the spot might pass, time and again, over a hidden treasure of gold without discovering it, so do all the creatures of this world pass daily into Brahma-world [in deep sleep] without discovering it, distracted as they are by false ideas.

(8.3.2)

[Quoted in Joseph Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space, (1986).]

In the words of William Blake: "If the doors of perception were cleansed, every thing would appear to man as it is, infinite."

Selected Prose and Poetical Writings

2005-03-23T17:27:00.000-08:00

Dusk: A Prose-Poem

This evening I went a-walking while the sun was yet up.
I found myself surrounded by a quiet, awesome majesty;
endless ranks of trees of all description, and, covered over
with leaves from the recent Autumn, ridge after ridge of
austere hills. Such hills! As if I with my small arms could
reach out and feel the bulges and hollows, following the
sinuous trace of brook and stream.

Up here in these august, ancient hills, heights are steep,
and dells narrow, life at once fleeting and yet eternal.
There is such a sense of age in this wood!

Atop one of the many hills, I gaze around:
all that can be seen are deepening, darkening,
twilight-gray, dusky woods, the red-orange sun
having already fallen below the horizon.

For all I can perceive here, I might just as well
be the only person alive; but here and now almost
preternaturally alive, because of how acutely aware
I am of the almost deathlike stillness and silence
by which I'm surrounded--almost overwhelmed.

How thrilling it is to realize that the noisiest sounds
around are your own footsteps crunching impudently
through the fallen leaves!

I disturb a distant squirrel, and watch with an almost
childlike fascination and joy as he slips along a fallen tree
down into the darker, deeper stream-bed--the only other
living creature I have seen now for literally hours.

Through the closer trees (mainly oaks) which stand out vivid
and starkly light gray, I see the medium-gray of the distant ridge,
descending, as it nears the stream, to a deeper, smoke-like gray.
The yet unfallen light-tan leaves of the beech trees make a clear
contrast against the darker, enticing veil of dusk
in the narrow stream-valley.

How I know and feel the call of this place!--to start forth,
over hill and into vale, again and again, searching darker
shadows, deeper mysteries; to savour the clear, cold water
as it glides serenely over smooth black rocks and pebbles;
here and there an animal track, attesting to the vitality
of this water. What an awesome privilege to be here, alone!

Does it not seem that perception becomes sharper when alone
in a wilderness like this?

At home, safely quartered for the night, I dream a dream
of flying alone, unaided, through trees--at an alarming,
yet thrilling rate of speed. Under me passes hill after hill,
glen after glen. All is deep, dark dusk;
my journey, never-ending.

T.J. White
3rd January, 1986

____________________________

The World of Cats

I watch my little cats as they
Pursue a flying bee and play,
And oft contented with each way
of theirs, commune I thus with them.

Yet sometimes they do quarrel and scold,
And wounded prides I laughing hold,
And soothing love; then think I bold:
Like God to us, am I to them.

T.J. White
25 January, 1995

_______________________

Ite, Fabula Est ...

De profunis clamavi ad te, Domine;
Domine, exaude vocem meam. ...

Psalm 130:i

At morning's Dawn with Joy I strayed,
And happily for hours we played--
We did not know, nor could we know,
The lengths to which Desire could go;

At midday's Noon I supp'd with Truth:
My love is but a beardless Youth;
O gentle Friend, 'twould folly be
To sport for very long with thee.

At evening's Hour I walked with Pain--
(That dreadful Fiend my heart did gain)
I sorrow'd thus, yea with the thought,
That Love by cruel Pain was bought;

At midnight's Knell with Death I slept,
Into those hideous arms I leapt
(That fearsome Demon long did seem
To cast his Shadow o'er my dream);

O stars above--O caring God!--
Have pity, please--Oh spare thy Rod!
I did not know, nor could I know
The depths to which Desire would go!

T.J. White
12 March 1988

______________________

Sea-Sonnet

Oh see the foam and flotsam as they race
Along the sides of mount'nous peaks of green
To heaven-ward, and into empty space;
Oh feel the blinding spray and blast so keen!
Oh hear the crash of waves and thund'rous rolls--
The tired, mournful shrieking of the air!
Almost a far-off cry of drowned souls
It seems--of captives of Poseidon's lair. ...
If ever you should see the white-capp'd surge
And hear the roaring wind, oh then beware!
Let not your ears pay heed unto that dirge,
Nor let your eyes dwell on the deep sea fair,
But fly--oh fly!--beyond the mountain wave,
The surging sea, and echoing coastal cave!

T.J. White
28 July 1988

What Do I Seek?

2005-03-09T17:30:00.000-08:00

I seek only another honest human soul, one whose MIND is not irredeemably SNARED in the fierce steel-jawed TRAP called
'POPULAR OPINION'. Show me such a person, and I will not
only honour and respect him (or her), but will seek to earn
his (or her) respect and friendship, to the end of my days.

Advice on How to Live a Full, Abundant Life

2005-03-05T10:20:00.000-08:00

A day spent without the sight or sound of beauty, the contemplation of mystery, or the search for truth and perfection, is a poverty-stricken day; and a succession of such days is fatal to human life.

Lewis Mumford (1895-1990),
in The Condition of Man [1944]
[quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts, 1980]

And, in light of the above, the advice of Walt Whitman (as found in the Preface to his original, 1855 edition of his Leaves of Grass), will also be most appropriate here:

This is what you should do: love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men ... re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss what insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem.

[op. cit.]

"The Kingdom of Heaven is Within You"

2005-03-05T09:45:00.000-08:00

The ultimate truth is so simple. It is nothing more than being in the pristine state. This is all that need be said.

All religions have come into existence because people want something elaborate and attractive and puzzling. Each religion is complex, and each sect in each religion has its own adherents and antagonists. For example, an ordinary Christian will not be satisfied unless he is told that God is somewhere in the far-off heavens, not to be reached by us unaided. Christ alone knew Him and Christ alone can guide us. Worship Christ and be saved. If he is told the simple truth, that "the kingdom of heaven is within you [*]," he is not satisfied and will read complex and far-fetched meanings into such statements.

Only mature minds can grasp the simple truth in all its nakedness.

Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950)

* This quotation is found in the Bible itself, at Luke 17:21 (KJV). If you doubt me, go look it up for yourself. THE 'CHRIST' HIMSELF SPOKE THOSE VERY WORDS!!!! (From a contemporary 'Christian' perspective, that is; I have already discussed the fact that I believe 'he' never had any actual, physical existence). And, as Maharshi mentioned, it is very interesting how many modern translators of the Bible try to re-word this particular phrase (many of them wording it as "among you", rather than "within you"), with the end-result that its meaning becomes severely distorted away from what is discussed above.

I believe that what we now know as 'Christianity' is nothing less than the greatest FRAUD and COVER-UP ever perpetrated upon the human race! And this same Fraud and Cover-up has been going on for nearly TWO-THOUSAND years!
Isn't it about time that the fraud was revealed for what it is?

Should you happen to doubt my assessment of 'Christianity', I challenge you to go look at the historical evidence yourself--ALL of it--(above all with an OPEN, unprejudiced mind!), and see if YOU come up with a different result. I can guarantee that you won't.

Thus it is that I profoundly applaud (and am eternally grateful for) the serious, sincere efforts of such conscientious scholars as Elaine Pagels, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, James M. Robinson, Marvin W. Meyer, and many such others. Thank 'God' we live in an age where such open, honest inquiry is at least possible! Thank 'God' we live in a time where honest individuals are not afraid to speak out and TELL THE NAKED TRUTH! I would be disgusted with (and ashamed of) such scholars--as I am with most other ordinary, spineless people--if they did NOT display such courage, resolve, and INTELLECTUAL AND SPIRITUAL INTEGRITY as they do (and so inspiringly also)!

Once again, a little reminder:

WHEN YOU SEE THAT GOD ACTS THROUGH YOU AT EVERY MOMENT,
IN EVERY MOVEMENT OF MIND OR BODY, YOU ATTAIN TRUE FREEDOM.
WHEN YOU REALIZE THE TRUTH, AND CLING TO NOTHING IN THE WORLD,
YOU ENTER ETERNAL LIFE.

From The Upanishads (8th-5th Century B.C.E.),
translated by W.B. Yeats and Shree Purohit Swami
[quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts, 1980]

Spinoza on the Nature of God

2005-03-02T17:38:00.000-08:00

The following is an excerpt from Will and Ariel Durant's abstract and discussion of Benedict Spinoza's view of the nature of 'God', as found in his posthumously-published work, Ethics. As the Durants point out, Spinoza's original full title of this work was (in Latin): Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata, which (if my Latin is not too rusty) is in English something like "Ethics, Demonstrated from the Rules of Geometry." This discussion is found in pages 636 through 641 of The Age of Louis XIV, in Chapter XXII, "Spinoza".

I include it here in this web-site because first and foremost I am absolutely amazed to discover (for I only read it for the first time about two days ago) that MY idea of the nature of 'God' is almost exactly the same, word for word, line for line, idea for idea, as Spinoza's. (Other previous writings of mine will demonstrate this fact.) And I developed my parallel view quite independently of having read this abstract of Spinoza (practically my only contact thus far with the ideas of Spinoza, though his name has been familiar to me for many years). I don't necessarily think that I am any great 'genius'--certainly not compared with those who undoubtedly were (or are), and I am definitely NOT anything like a MATHEMATICIAN (as Spinoza was); yet I was (somehow) able to independently develop a conception of 'deity' almost exactly identical in depth and breadth to that of one of the unquestioned greatest minds this world has ever produced. This is the source of my profound amazement. I feel much as Nietzsche admitted he felt upon first discovering the works of Stendhal and Dostoevsky.

The second reason I include this excerpt here is in the hope that by drawing attention to it here, I may help to spread the influence of these ideas (which I think need to be disseminated); hopefully this clear and concise discussion (the most clear and concise I have yet found) will be of greater benefit to others than it has even been to myself.

And the third and final reason why I include it here is that it constitutes a very apt and relevant continuation of my earlier discussion of theology and my own personal journey of spiritual, theological, and intellectual development.

Where I would differ from Spinoza is only in this: he says that 'God' contains no emotion [as in 'love', etc.]. I would, however, argue--and this argument is consonant with the rest of Spinoza's framework of ideas, I think--that 'God' does, indeed, contain or possess emotion (as in love), BUT ONLY INSOFAR AS 'HE' CONTAINS OR POSSESSES ALL THAT EMOTION (OR 'LOVE', ETC.) WHICH IS CONTAINED OR POSSESSED BY THE TOTALITY OF ALL THINKING, FEELING, 'LOVING' BEINGS--I.E., "HUMAN" BEINGS--since 'God' is (as Spinoza affirms) the sum totality of all that exists. Thus, my earlier statements that 'God' is LOVE still hold true; but we must add that 'God' is also everything else as well. The same would also hold true with the idea that 'God' also possesses 'personality', 'consciousness', and 'intelligence'--i.e., only in the sense that 'God' is the sum total of all that 'personality', 'consciousness', and 'intelligence' which exist in the entire universe. I only wonder why Spinoza apparently did not admit this, since it follows quite clearly and logically from everything else he said. And yet I want to add here--almost (seemingly) despite all of the following--that I believe that 'God' does, indeed, possess a very powerfully-strong personality and consciousness and intelligence and emotion--as the sum total of all that of the same which exists in the universe--a being or entity, indeed, comprising the sum total of all that exists in the universe (but a being or entity nonetheless), of such a power and magnitude that by comparison to it, we mere, puny humans, would indeed be completely dwarfed, absorbed, or overwhelmed by it, were we not somehow kept apart and separated from it. (In passing, I believe this has much to do with the so-called 'Big Bang'.) We, as individual conscious humans, are merely tiny atoms or corpuscles in the mind/body of 'God' himself (along with all the other mind-matter existing in the universe). All of this follows quite clearly from the basic idea that the universe itself IS 'God'. And God said, "Let there be light!" And there was light. ... And the Creation (which is 'God' himself) sprang into material/spatial/temporal 'existence' (once again), continually creating and re-creating itself anew. ...

________________________________

Spinoza began with definitions, mostly taken from medieval philosophy. The words he used have changed their meaning since his day, and now some of them obscure his thought. The third definition is fundamental: "I understand Substance to be that which is in itself and is conceived through itself; I mean that, the conception of which does not depend upon the conception of another thing from which it must be formed." He does not mean substance in the modern sense of material constituents; our use of the word to mean essence or basic significance comes closer to his intent. If we take literally his Latin term substantia, it indicates that which stands under, underlies, supports. In his correspondence he speaks of "substance or being"; i.e., he identifies substance with existence or reality. Hence he can say that "existence appertains to the nature of substance," that in substance, essence and existence are one. We may conclude that in Spinoza substance means the essential reality underlying all things.

This reality is perceived by us in two forms: as extension or matter, and as thought or mind. These two are "attributes" of substance; not as qualities residing in it, but as the same reality perceived externally by our senses as matter, and internally by our consciousness as thought. Spinoza is a complete monist: these two aspects of reality--matter and thought--are not distinct and separate entities, they are two sides, the outside and the inside, of one reality; so are body and mind, so is physiological action and the corresponding mental state. Strictly speaking, Spinoza, so far from being a materialist, is an idealist: he defines an attribute as "that which the intellect apprehends of substance as constituting its essence"; he admits (long before Berkeley was born) that we know reality, whether as matter or as thought, only through perception or idea. He believes that reality expresses itself in endless aspects through an "infinite number of attributes," of which we imperfect organisms perceive only two. So far, then, substance, or reality, is that which appears to us as matter or mind. Substance and its attributes are one: reality is a union of matter and mind; and these are distinct only in our manner of perceiving substance. To put it not quite Spinozistically, matter is reality externally perceived; mind is reality internally perceived. If we could perceive all things in the same double way--externally and internally--as we perceive ourselves, we should, Spinoza believes, find that "all things are in some manner animate" (omnia quodammodo animata); there is some form or degree of mind or life in everything. Substance is always active: matter is always in motion; mind is always perceiving or feeling or thinking or desiring or imagining or remembering, awake or in sleep. The world is in every part of it alive.

God, in Spinoza, is identical with substance; He is the reality underlying and uniting matter and mind. God is not identical with matter (therefore Spinoza is not a materialist), but matter is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of God (here one of Spinoza's youthful heresies reappears). God is not identical with mind (therefore Spinoza is not a spiritualist), but mind is an inherent and essential attribute or aspect of God. God and substance are identical with nature (Deus sive substantia sive natura) and the totality of all being (therefore Spinoza is a pantheist).

Nature has two aspects. As the power of motion in bodies, and as the power of generation, growth, and feeling in organisms, it is natura naturans--nature "creating" or giving birth. As the sum of all individual things, of all bodies, plants, animals, and men, it is natura naturata--generated or "created" nature. These individual entities in generated nature are called by Spinoza modi, modes--transient modifications and embodiments of substance, reality, matter-mind, God. They are part of substance, but in our perception we distinguish them as passing, fleeting forms of an eternal whole. This stone, this tree, this man, this planet, this star--all this marvelous kaleidescope of appearing and dissolving individual forms--constitute that "temporal order" which, in On the Improvement of the Intellect, Spinoza contrasted with the "eternal order" that in a stricter sense is the underlying reality and God:

By a series of causes and real entities I do not understand ... a series of individual mutable things, but the series of fixed and eternal things. For it would be impossible for human weakness to follow up the series of individual mutable things [every stone, every flower, every man] ... Their existence has no connection with their essence [they may exist, but need not], or ... is not an eternal truth ... This [essence] is only to be sought from fixed and eternal things, and from the laws inscribed in those things as their true codes, according to which all individual things are made and arranged; nay, these individual and mutable things depend so intimately and essentially (so to speak) on these fixed ones, that without them they can neither exist nor be conceived.

So a single, specific triangle is a mode; it may but need not exist; but if it does it will have to obey the laws--and will have the powers--of the triangle in general. A specific man is a mode; he may or may not exist; but if he does he will share in the essence and power of matter-mind, and will have to obey the laws that govern the operations of bodies and thoughts. These powers and laws constitute the order of nature as natura naturans; they constitute, in theological terms, the will of God. The modes of matter in their totality are the body of God; the modes of mind in their totality, are the mind of God; substance or reality, in all its modes and attributes, is God; "whatever is, is in God."

Spinoza agrees with the Scholastic philosophers that in God essence and existence are one--His existence is involved in our conception of His essence, for he conceives God as all existence itself. He agrees with the Scholastics that God is causa sui, self-caused, for there is nothing outside him. He agrees with the Scholastics that we can know the existence of God, but not his real nature in all his attributes. He agrees with St. Thomas Aquinas that to apply the masculine pronouns to God is absurd but convenient. He agrees with Maimonides that most of the qualities we ascribe to God are conceived by weak analogy with human qualities.

God is described as the lawgiver or prince, and styled just, merciful, etc., merely in concession to popular understanding and the imperfection of popular knowledge ... God is free from passions, nor is he affected with any emotion [affectus] of joy or sorrow ... Those who confuse divine with human nature easily attribute human passions to God, especially if they do not know how passions are produced in the mind.

God is not a person, for that means a particular and finite mind; but God is the total of all the mind (all the animation, sensitivity, and thought)--as well as of all the matter--in existence. The human mind is part of a certain infinite intellect (as in the Aristotelian-Alexandrian tradition). But "if intellect and will appertain to the eternal essence of God, something far else must be understood by these two attributes than what is commonly understood by men." "The actual intellect, ... together with will, desire, love, etc., must be referred to the natura naturata, not to the natura naturans"; that is, individual minds, with their desires, emotions, and volitions, are modes or modifications, contained in God as the totality of things, but not pertaining to Him as the law and life of the world. There is will in God, but only in the sense of the laws operating everywhere. His will is law.

God is not a bearded patriarch sitting on a cloud and ruling the universe; He is "the indwelling, not the transient, cause of all things." There is no Creation, except in the sense that the infinite reality--matter-mind--is ever taking new individual forms or modes. "God is not in any one place, but is everywhere according to his essence." Indeed, the word cause is out of place here; God is the universal cause not in the sense of a cause preceeding its effect, but only in the sense that the behavior of anything follows necessarily from its nature. God is the cause of all events in the same way that the nature of a triangle is the cause of its properties and behavior. God is "free" only in the sense that He is not subject to any external cause or force, and is determined only by His own essence or nature; but He "does not act from freedom of will"; all His actions are determined by His essence--which is the same as to say that all events are determined by the inherent nature and properties of things. There is no design in nature in the sense that God desires some end; He has no desires or designs, except as the totality contains all the desires and designs of all modes and therefore of all organisms. In nature there are only effects following inevitably from antecedent causes and inherent properties. There are no miracles, for the will of God and the "fixed and unchanged order of nature" are one; any break in "the chain of natural events" would be a self-contradiction.

Man is only a small part of the universe. Nature is neutral as between man and other forms. We must not apply to nature or God such words as good or evil, beautiful or ugly; these are subjective terms, as much so as hot or cold; they are determined by the contribution of the external world to our advantage or displeasure.

The perfection of things is to be judged by their nature and power alone; nor are they more or less perfect because they delight or offend the human senses, or because they are beneficial or prejudicial to human nature ... If, therefore, anything in nature seems to us ridiculous, absurd, or evil, it is because we know only in part, and are almost entirely ignorant of, the order and interdependence of nature as a whole; and also because we want everything to be arranged according to the dictates of our human reason. In reality that which reason considers evil is not evil in respect to the order and laws of nature as a whole, but only in respect to the laws of our reason.

Likewise there is no beauty or ugliness in nature.

Beauty ... is not so much a quality of the object beheld, as an effect in him who beholds it. If our sight were longer or shorter, if our constitutions were different, what we now think beautiful we should think ugly. ... The most beautiful hand, seen through the microscope, will appear horrible ... I do not attribute to nature either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-formed, or confused.

Order is objective only in the sense that all things cohere in one system of law; but in that order a destructive storm is as natural as the splendor of a sunset or the sublimity of the sea.

Are we justified, on the basis of this "theology," in calling Spinoza an athiest? We have seen that he was not a materialist, for he did not identify God with matter; he says quite clearly that "those who think that the Tractatus [theologico-politicus] rests on the identification of God with nature--taking nature in the sense of a certain mass of corporeal matter--are entirely wrong." He conceived God as mind as well as matter, and he did not reduce mind to matter; he acknowledged that mind is the only reality directly known. He thought that something akin to mind is mingled with all matter; in this respect he was a panpsychist. He was a pantheist, seeing God in all things, and all things in God. Bayle, Hume, and others considered him an athiest; and this term might seem justified by Spinoza's denial of feeling, desire, or purpose in God. He himself, however, objected to "the opinion which the common people have of me, who do not cease to accuse me falsely of atheism." Apparently he felt that his ascription of mind and intelligence to God absolved him from the charge of atheism. And it must be admitted that he spoke repeatedly of his God in terms of religious reverence, often in terms quite consonant with the conception of God in Maimonides or Aquinas. Novalis would call Spinoza "der Gottbetrunkene Mensch," the God-intoxicated man.

Actually he was intoxicated with the whole order of nature, which in its eternal consistency and movement seemed to him admirable and sublime; and in Book I of the Ethics he wrote both a system of theology and the metaphysics of science. In the world of law he felt a divine revelation greater than any book, however noble or beautiful. The scientist who studies that law, even in its pettiest and most prosaic detail, is deciphering that revelation, for "the more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God." (This sentence struck Goethe as one of the profoundest in literature.) It seemed to Spinoza that he had honestly accepted and met the challenge implicit in Copernicus--to reconceive deity in terms worthy of the universe now progressively revealed. In Spinoza science and religion are no longer in conflict; they are one.

(This "challenge implicit in Copernicus" mentioned above, was discussed by Joseph Campbell in the beginning pages of his The Inner Reaches of Outer Space [q.v.].)

The Mystic's Desire, According to Campbell

2005-03-01T17:30:00.000-08:00

"Another of the Sufi mystics said 'The function of the orthodox community is to give the mystic his desire, which is union with God, through mortification and death'."

From The Power of Myth [with Bill Moyers], 1988.

One of Campbell's disciples, Diane K. Osbon, in her The Joseph Campbell Companion, remembered Campbell as repeating this Sufi quotation somewhat differently:

"The function of the orthodox community is to torture the mystic to death: his goal."

Now, a little challenge to my readers, for them to prove their worthiness to receive this doctrine: when you can satisfactorily explain to me the above idea, then I will say that you are truly 'enlightened' and a 'mystic'. Although I certainly could do so (if I wished), I will not now attempt to explain the above idea; I will wait until YOU do so--however short or long that may take.

Remember what the 'Christ' said to his hearers: "He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear. ..."
(In other words, these words are meant only for those persons ABLE to comprehend them.)

Campbell quoted a very deep idea (above), and he certainly understood it fully (as do I); DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

Campbell on the Use of Hallucinogens to Facilitate the Mystical Experience

2005-02-24T15:40:00.000-08:00

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).

Some Wisdom from Edward Fitzgerald

2005-02-24T15:15:00.000-08:00

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.

An Inspiring Thought

2005-02-24T14:38:00.000-08:00

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)

A Response to One Who Commented on this Web-Site

2005-02-23T16:55:00.000-08:00

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.

The Essence of Ethics or 'Religion'

2005-02-19T11:38:00.000-08:00

[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.

Spiritual Journey: Part Five

2005-02-10T16:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Spiritual Journey: Part Four

2005-02-07T17:41:00.000-08:00

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.

Spiritual Journey: Part Three

2005-02-03T18:25:00.000-08:00

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.

Spiritual Journey: Part Two

2005-02-03T17:35:00.000-08:00

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

Spiritual Journey: Part One

2005-02-02T17:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Ionesco on Art as Non-conformity

2005-02-01T15:30:00.000-08:00

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).

Where Is The Source of the "Ego" or "Self"?

2005-01-25T17:35:00.000-08:00

Monoimos, a second-century C.E. Gnostic ("Christian") teacher (quoted by Pagels, and Freke and Gandy) said it quite well. With apologies to the translators, I have here slightly modified both translations to clarify (as I think it) what Monoimos' message really is--to make it somewhat easier (I hope) to comprehend:

Abandon this "search for God" and "the Creation" and other matters of a similar sort. Look for "God" by taking YOURSELF as the starting point. LEARN who it is WITHIN YOU who takes everything to himself and makes it his own, saying, "MY God, MY mind, MY thought, MY soul, MY body." LEARN where and what is the source of "ego", "self", sorrow, joy, love, and hate; of waking--even though you would rather not; of sleeping--though you would rather not; of getting angry--though you would rather not; and of falling in love--though you would rather not. And if you will carefully and impartially investigate these matters, you will ultimately find "God"--in YOUR SELF.

What did "Christ" say at Luke 17:21? "The Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN YOU..." (KJV)

This is, of course, echoed by similar statements in the Gnostic "Gospel of Thomas", such as "The kingdom of the Father is spread out on the earth, but people do not see it," and "The kingdom is within AND without..."

And finally, what is perhaps THE most common statement about man's relationship with deity as found in the eastern traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism? "The self is Atman." "'God' is Brahman." "ATMAN IS BRAHMAN." In other words, "God" IS the "Self", or the "Self" is part of "God".

Many scholars (and laymen) are now asking whether Eastern philosophies might not have had a profound influence on the Gnostic form of early Christianity (and I think it probably did).

And throughout the ages since Gnosticism was brutally suppressed, many later mystics and thinkers have also affirmed that the "self" in each of us is only a "spark", "fragment" or "splinter" of God himself, that divinity or "The Divine" resides within each of us, if only we will open our sleepy eyes to see it.

Now, I don't think for a minute that this idea or belief ignores the propensities for 'evil' that seem to be irredeemably inherent in humankind; I tend rather to see both what we puny humans call "Good" AND "Evil" as being part and parcel of "God" or the "Divine'. (GASP!!!! HORRORS!!!!) Well, I have this idea on good authority: no less a person than the Old Testament prophet Isaiah said it, speaking in "God's" voice (and presumably with His Authority too):
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil." (Isaiah 45:7) I guess it could be readily admitted (by even the most hardened Evangelical) that if you really THINK about the matter, NOTHING can really exist without "God's" authority, or without "His" permitting it to exist--if, that is, "God" did in fact create EVERYTHING that exists. I, for one, think so, and I also see how this idea harmonizes quite nicely with Monoimos' (and the other mystics') teaching with which I began this little essay.

Early in the twentieth century, German writer Hermann Hesse argued that thinking human beings should move beyond the conventional dichotomy of 'good and evil', and I agree: it is far past the time when the human race should evolve and develop a more MATURE idea of the nature of "God". (Nietzsche hinted at this well over a hundred years ago ...) And here it is definitely ironic that we are being shown the way toward this new conception of deity (and our relationship to it) by the teachings of these sages and prophets and mystics whose ideas have literally been around for two thousand years (and more), but which have been cleverly and deviously kept from the knowledge and awareness of most of us during that time.

"Even so, Lord JESUS, come ..."

T.J.White, 25 January, 2005.

The School For Geniuses

2005-01-22T11:20:00.000-08:00

"The Voice of One crying in the Wilderness ..."

St.John 1:23

Audite vocem meam, Domine.

It seems to me that the growth or development of the 'genius'--his growth through experience--is akin symbolically to the act of relentlessly climbing a mountain--the mountain of experience, of knowledge, of life. And it is a struggle indeed! But when one has finally reached the 'top'--assuming in the first place that one actually does reach a 'top', all things being relative, one gazes around from the top of the moutain-peak of life, and soon notices that there are certain others also situated upon mountain peaks of their own--some higher, some lower than one's own--shining or burning with as bright and visible a luminosity as one feels radiating from within oneself, and also enjoying the rarefied atmosphere of pure, strong, emotional and intellectual experience.

One also notices, however, with an immediate feeling of profound despair and terror, the enormous degree to which one is forever cut off from the multitudes of the so-called 'normal' people--those many still trapped and dwelling blithely and ignorantly in the atmospherically-dense valleys of comfort below. One both wants to be with those in the valleys of ignorance--because one LOVES, and cannot bear to be alone, and yet does not want to be where they are, because--even moreso--one cannot abide the somnolent mediocrity, boredom, and aimlessness of that existence; nor can one trade one's hard-won, immensely-valued knowledge and experience for the ignorance one formerly possessed (and which the vast majority below and around one still possess); one somehow feels, with all one's soul, that this is a negative end to be avoided at all cost.

Thus it is that, because of this profound, terrifying isolation and loneliness, one feels an imperative need to cry out desperately toward those other few souls one glimpses in the distance who have also successfully climbed their mountains of experience. For how else is one to survive where one is? For having only recently arrived at one's new level of experience, one feels much as a newborn child must feel, though unable to articulate or understand it--an acute disorientation and the terrifying fear of the new and unknown, not having had the benefit of any sort of guide in this long uphill struggle--not one single human soul who might have calmed one's fears, who might have explained the true significance of one's sorrows. What else can one do, except call out toward one's fellow-travellers for (if nothing else) the occasional comforting word?

For to be long isolated in such manner from other feeling human souls must lead inevitably to either insanity or suicide, given our present emotional limitations and instabilities; and therefore, since we are loath to return to the valleys of sloth, indolence and ignorance, we find that--simply to survive--we truly MUST seek communion with others of our kind.

So runs my dream: but what am I?
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.

--Tennyson.

T.J.White, 10 February, 1995.

Nietzsche on the Philosopher as Outsider

2005-01-22T10:45:00.000-08:00

It seems to me more and more that the philosopher, as a NECESSARY man of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, has always found himself, and always had to find himself, in oppposition to his today: the ideal of the day was always his enemy. ...

Today, conversely, when only the herd animal is honored and dispenses honors in Europe, and when "equality of rights" could all too easily be converted into an equality in violating rights--by that I mean, into a common war on all that is rare, strange, or privileged, on the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, and on the wealth of creative power and mastery--today the concept of "greatness" entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being capable of being different, standing alone, and having to live independently; and the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal when he posits: "He shall be the greatest who can be the loneliest, the most hidden, the most deviating, the human being beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues, he that is overrich in will. Precisely this should be called GREATNESS: to be capable of being as manifold as whole, as wide as full." And to ask this once more: today--is greatness POSSIBLE? ...

from BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL (212), transl. Walter Kaufmann
(as hereafter)

_________________________

Revaluation of All Values

This book belongs to the very few. Perhaps not one of them is even living yet. Maybe they will be the readers who understand my ZARATHUSTRA: how COULD I mistake myself for one of those for whom there are ears even now? Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.

The conditions under which I am understood, and then of NECESSITY--I know them only too well. One must be honest in matters of the spirit to the point of hardness before one can even endure my seriousness and my passion. One must be skilled in living on mountains--seeing the wretched ephemeral babble of politics and national self-seeking BENEATH oneself. One must have become indifferent; one must never ask if the truth is useful or if it may prove our undoing. [One must have] The predilection of strength for questions for which no one today has the courage; [One must have] the courage for the FORBIDDEN; [One must have] the predestination to the labyrinth. [One must have] An experience of seven solitudes. [One must have] New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. [One must have] A new conscience for truths that have so far remained mute. AND the will to the economy of the great style: keeping our strength, our ENTHUSIASM in harness. [One must have] Reverence for oneself; love of oneself; unconditional freedom before oneself.

Well then! Such men alone are my readers, my right readers, my predestined readers: what matter the rest? The rest--that is merely mankind. One must be above mankind in strength, in LOFTINESS of soul--in contempt.

from the preface to THE ANTICHRIST. (Editorial additions by T.J.White)

______________________

...As for your principle that truth is always on the side of the more difficult, I admit this in part. However, it is difficult to believe that 2 times 2 is NOT 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult simply to accept everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots--what is considered truth in the circle of one's relatives and of many good men, and what, moreover, really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one's feelings and even one's conscience, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good? Is it decisive after all that we arrive at THAT view of God, world, and reconciliation which makes us feel most comfortable? Rather, is not the result of his inquiries something wholly indifferent to the true inquirer? Do we after all seek rest, peace, and pleasure in our inquiries? No, only truth--even if it be the most abhorrent and ugly. Still one last question: if we had believed from childhood that all salvation issued from someone other than Jesus--say, from Mohammed--is it not certain that we should have experienced the same blessings? ...Faith does not offer the least support for a proof of objective truth. Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire. ...*

from his LETTER TO HIS SISTER (1865)

*He was quoting Heine: "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then enquire. ..." (Letter to his sister, 1817)

____________________

THE CRIMINAL AND WHAT IS RELATED TO HIM. The criminal type is the type of the strong human being under unfavorable circumstances: a strong human being made sick. He lacks 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. His VIRTUES are ostracized by society; the most vivid drives with which he is endowed soon grow together with the depressing affects--with suspicion, fear, and dishonor. Yet this is almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. Whoever must do secretly, with long suspense, caution, and cunning, what he can do best and would most like to do, becomes anemic; and because he always harvests only danger, persecution, and calamity from his instincts, his attitude to these instincts is reversed too, and he comes to experience them fatalistically. It is our society, our tame, mediocre, emasculated society, in which a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea necessarily degenerates into a criminal. Or almost necessarily; for there are cases in which such a man proves stronger than society: the Corsican, Napoleon, is the most famous case.

The testimony of Dostoevski is relevant to this problem--Dostoevski, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life, even more than my discovery of Stendhal. This PROFOUND human being, who was ten times right in his low estimate of the superficial Germans, lived for a long time among the convicts in Siberia--hardened criminals for whom there was no way back to society--and found them very different from what he himself had expected: they were carved out of just about the best, hardest, and most valuable wood that grows anywhere on Russian soil.

Let us generalize the case of the criminal: let us think of men so constituted that, for one reason or another, they lack public approval and know that they are not felt to be beneficial or useful--that Chandala feeling that one is not considered equal, but an outcast, unworthy, contaminating. All men so constituted have a subterranean hue to their thoughts and actions; everything about them becomes paler than in those whose existence is touched by daylight. Yet almost all forms of existence which we consider distinguished today once lived in this half tomblike atmosphere: the scientific character, the artist, the genius, the free spirit, the actor, the merchant, the great discoverer. As long as the priest was considered the supreme type, EVERY valuable type of human being was devalued. The time will come, I promise, when the priest will be considered the lowest type, OUR Chandala, the most mendacious, the most indecent kind of human being.

I call attention to the fact that even now--under the mildest regimen of morals which has ever ruled on earth, or at least in Europe--every deviation, every long, all-too-long sojourn below, every unusual or opaque form of existence, brings one closer to that type which is perfected in the criminal. All innovators of the spirit must for a time bear the pallid and fatal mark of the Chandala on their foreheads--NOT because they are considered that way by others, but because they themselves feel the terrible cleavage which separates them from everything that is customary or reputable. Almost every genius knows, as one stage of his development, the "Catilinarian existence"--a feeling of hatred, revenge, and rebellion against everything which already IS, which no longer BECOMES. Catiline--the form of pre-existence of EVERY Caesar.

TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, 45.

The School of the Prophets

2005-01-19T17:38:00.000-08:00

Those that want [i.e., "lack"] friends to open themselves unto
are cannibals of their own hearts. ... The parable of Pythagoras
is dark, but true; Cor ne edito, 'Eat not the heart'. ...

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626)

To wish to feel 'normal' and 'accepted', loved and wanted--is this not an indisputable facet of the human condition? Hence the often overwhelming appeal of the 'herd', or 'popular' peer group. The 'normal' mainstream majority appeals to us because we receive 'positive reinforcement' from most members thereof when we have successfully ingratiated, or conformed, ourselves to it. This, in turn, causes us to feel 'normal' and 'accepted' ourselves. And of course, this feeling of acceptance causes us to desire ever more and more to conform ourselves to the dominant, stasis-loving majority. And behold how many of us are veritable slaves to this basic human need, this condition which is so very difficult to completely turn one's back on!

And yet, to escape from this tunnel-vision way of life (and thinking!) is imperative, if one wishes to grow through experience to discover the ultimate truths and ends of life. Unfortunately, there is just no other way presently seen. One must be willing to become a non-conformist; one must be willing to turn one's back on the society of one's fellow-beings, to spend years (if necessary) in the solitary deserts, like John the Baptist; to climb the mountain alone, as did Moses, before bringing down to humanity a new vision of reality or the Divine. One must be willing to forego the feelings of normalcy and the acceptance of one's peer society--hence one's peace of soul--if one is to follow truth to wherever it may lead. As Nietzsche truly knew and said, to be devoted to truth, one must be prepared for the painful, jarring feelings of dislocation that come from feeling oneself set apart and isolated from all that is or ever will be 'whole', 'normal', 'healthy', or 'popular'. And this is, of course, the paramount task of every real philosopher--this relentless questioning of life and its perceived values, and one's relationship therewith. As Nietzsche also said, one must re-evaluate all values--that is, question everything, take nothing whatsoever for granted. And how many people are able and willing to consistently do this? How many of us run for shelter the minute the storm threatens!

And the end of all this is predetermined: this isolating dislocation, if pursued to its bitter, lonely end, can lead only to either genius, insanity, or suicide, or perhaps all three at once.

"Ours, my boy, is a high and lonely destiny. ..."

C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia

T.J. White, July 1st, 1994

Concerning a Liberal or Free Society

2005-01-13T17:10:00.000-08:00

An Excerpt from the 1973 textbook, An Introduction to Moral and Social Philosophy,
edited by Jeffrie G. Murphy (pp.413-414):

What form of government would a moral man choose for himself and others? The position of liberalism holds (1) that freedom or liberty is the most important value[*] and (2) that democratic forms of government are most likely to maximize this value. According to this position, freedom or liberty is to be understood as the ability, without hindrance from others, to gain satisfaction for one's wants and desires, insofar as this is compatible with a like liberty for others.

John Stuart Mill is generally regarded as the most persuasive spokesman for this kind of liberalism. And one of his great strengths is that he perceives some of the pathologies to which democracy is susceptible. One of these pathologies, which Mill calls the "tyranny of the majority," results from the power that a majority has in a democracy to coerce an unpopular minority. To cure this pathology, Mill suggests that democracies should subscribe (in a legal constitution perhaps) to the following principle: society is justified in coercing any one of its members only to prevent harm to others. Only if the democratic principle of majority rule is limited in this way can the tyranny of the majority be avoided.

Herbert Marcuse [1898-1979], a contemporary Marxist, believes that even a democracy so limited will still have grave defects. Modern technological societies, even those calling themselves democracies, have subtle and terribly dangerous ways of repressing their citizens. This kind of repression is dangerous just because it does not seem repressive at all, since a substantial number of people in the population have most of their needs and desires satisfied. Suppose, however, that those needs and desires are artificial--that is, manufactured and satisfied by the power elite in a society to ensure that citizens remain pliant and cooperative. This supposition forms the basis for Marcuse's disquieting commentary on contemporary Western democracies. To use the language of Marx, the evil of these societies is that, despite the wants they satisfy, they have failed to reduce alienation. Indeed they rest on it. ...

[*Comment by T.J.White:

Notice that he nowhere mentions the value of security or safety, which is so much trumpeted about today. I hold that complete (or near-total) security or safety is wholly incompatible with a free society, one that cherishes the liberty of the individual. One cannot have both. Freedom necessarily entails risk, and it seems that nowadays, our society is (tragically) increasingly unwilling to take that risk to be truly free. Many people in our society would much rather (it seems apparent) give up those freedoms which their forefathers most cherished (and fought and died for) in the name of and for the sake of safety and security, rather than continue to be a truly free people, but constantly risk another "terrorist attack." And even more tragically, it seems equally obvious that there are many in our current government who are attempting to use the threat of "terrorism" and "terror attacks" to stampede the fearful American people (like a herd of buffalo over a cliff) into giving up those freedoms. And it appears clear that they are succeeding. How many more years before Americans will have lost all their basic (worthwhile) freedoms, and will be reduced to the level of serfs or slaves (albeit perhaps happy and contented--if brainless--ones)? How many more years (if we are to be honest) before we must call America the "United Fascist States of America"? I am stating this really somewhat tongue-in-cheek, for I feel that the time is already upon us, and our future condition can differ from our present one only in a matter of degree, not substance.]

Society Neglecting Those It Considers Less Valuable

2005-01-13T16:30:00.000-08:00

An Excerpt From Erich Fromm's 1965 book Escape From Freedom

The term normal or healthy can be defined in two ways. Firstly, from the standpoint of a functioning society, one can call a person normal or healthy if he is able to fulfill the social role he is to take in that given society. More concretely, this means that he is able to work in the fashion which is required in that particular society, and furthermore that he is able to participate in the reproduction of society, that is, that he can raise a family. Secondly, from the standpoint of the individual, we look upon health or normalcy as the optimum of growth and happiness of the individual.

If the structure of a given society were such that it offered the optimum possibility for individual happiness, both viewpoints would coincide. However, this is not the case in most societies we know, including our own. Although they differ in the degree to which they promote the aims of individual growth, there is a discrepancy between the aims of the smooth functioning of society and of the full development of the individual. This fact makes it imperative to differentiate sharply between the two concepts of health. The one is governed by social necessities, the other by values and norms concerning the aim of individual existence.

Unfortunately, this differentiation is often neglected. Most psychiatrists take the structure of their own society so much for granted that to them the person who is not well adapted assumes the stigma of being less valuable. On the other hand, the well-adapted person is supposed to be the more valuable person in terms of a scale of human values. If we differentiate the two concepts of normal and neurotic, we come to the following conclusion: The person who is normal in terms of being well adapted is often less healthy than the neurotic person in terms of human values. Often he is well adapted only at the expense of having given up his self in order to become more or less the person he believes he is expected to be. All genuine individuality and spontaneity may have been lost. On the other hand, the neurotic person can be characterized as somebody who was not ready to surrender completely in the battle for his self. To be sure, his attempt to save his individual self was not successful, and instead of expressing his self productively he sought salvation through neurotic symptoms and by withdrawing into a phantasy life. Nevertheless, from the standpoint of human values, he is less crippled than the kind of normal person who has lost his individuality altogether. Needless to say, there are persons who are not neurotic and yet have not drowned their individuality in the process of adaptation. But the stigma attached to the neurotic person seems to us to be unfounded and justified only if we think of neurotic in terms of social efficiency. As for a whole society, the term neurotic cannot be applied in this latter sense, since a society could not exist if its members did not function socially. From a standpoint of human values, however, a society could be called neurotic in the sense that its members are crippled in the growth of their personality. Since the term neurotic is so often used to denote a lack of social functioning, we would prefer not to speak of a society in terms of its being neurotic, but rather in terms of its being adverse to human happiness and self-realization.

(pp.159-161)

The Purpose of Suffering

2005-01-11T17:10:00.000-08:00

A Private Meditation on the Purpose and Necessity of Suffering,
and the Frivolity of the General Idea of Being 'Saved' (in the Religious Sense).

Do you not realize that suffering is necessary for the cleansing of the Soul?--that it cannot ever happen any other way? 'Baptism' may be symbolic of the cleansing, but the real thing comes from actual suffering.

Suffering saves us, not 'Jesus' or some other far-off fictional deity. That is the 'old lie'--that Jesus will save us from (from!!) our suffering and sin.

To believe in the 'Jesus' of the religionists is, after all, nothing other than to be weak, unmanly, and effeminate, not to mention disappointing and disgusting. (And I am referring here not to any actual person named 'Jesus' who may or may not have actually existed, but rather to the generally-held Twenty-First Century Western/American idea of the same, which is not by any means an identical thing.) The words of Beethoven are appropriate here:

O Freunde, nicht diese Tone!

You are capable of so much better than this! Live up to your potential as human beings--even, as children of the Living Father!

"There is nothing in your creed," said an astute and wise Roman Emperor once, "beyond the one word believe." And he (Julian) probably knew the early Christians much better than we, especially as he was their contemporary.

Learn to behold the 'God within you'! Your soul is a vehicle for the divine! 'God' is not "out there"--God is here, within you! Salvation comes not from without (as in the idea of "Jesus will save me"), but rather from within. You must save yourselves!

The fact that so few of you realize this (or accept this, which is far more important), is precisely the reason why so many of you live and die lost--"perduto." "Sons of Perdition" are you--banished to outer darkness, except that the 'darkness' is, once again, not "out there", but here, inside your own benighted souls.

And you have the power to redeem and save yourselves, but yet you don't use it!

Instead, you look to an all-powerful, mammoth father-figure, that is entirely the product of your own (and your ancestors') fancy and fear, to save you from yourselves and your own guilt and fear.

The incredible, sad, ironic fact is, that by placing your belief and trust in a 'Jesus' who will save you from your suffering (which is only a product of your guilt and fear), you thereby block yourselves from ever achieving true salvation, true cleansing, which cleansing indeed can only come about through the embracing or acceptance of your own suffering.

T.J.White, 4 September, 2002

_______________________

An Unrelated Addendum

It is their pathetic, pathological need for approval and acceptance from a 'father-figure' or an 'authority'-figure, which causes most Americans to give up their freedoms, and embrace an authoritarian, dictatorial form of government--a fascist-type government by Bureaucracy or Oligarchy. This is exactly what we see occuring even now in America--the one nation in all the world, with its heritage of respect for individual liberties and rights, precisely at the expense of government, where such a thing is most disheartening and dismaying to observe.

T.J.White, 8 September, 2002

An Anonymous Medieval English Quotation

2005-01-11T16:26:00.000-08:00

How mow they thanne shryue that synne,
That seyn they haue no gylt therinne?
We Englys men theron shulde thinke.

(translation:)

How can anyone repent of any sin,
If he believes he is not guilty of it?
We Englishmen should really think about this matter.

(Translation by T.J.White)

Another Useful Poem

2005-01-11T16:20:00.000-08:00

"And So I Judged"

I dreamed Death came the other night,
And Heaven's gate swung wide--
With kindly grace an Angel came
And ushered me inside;

And there, to my astonishment,
Stood folks I'd known on Earth:
Some I'd judged and deemed unfit,
And some of little worth;

Indignant words rose to my lips,
But never were set free--
For every face showed stunned surprise--
No one expected ME!

Author Unknown
(to me at any rate)

A Poem by Joaquin Miller

2005-01-11T16:16:00.000-08:00

In men whom men condemn as ill
I find so much of goodness still,
In men whom men pronounce divine
I find so much of sin and blot,
I hesitate to draw the line
Between the two, where God has not.

Joaquin Miller
(ne Cincinnatus Hiner Miller)
(1841-1913)
American poet

Toward Understanding Persecution

2005-01-10T17:07:00.000-08:00

All known life-forms exhibit the Nietzschean "Will to Power" (also known as the "Will to Live" and/or the "Survival Instinct/Reproductive Urge").

Individual life-forms cannot survive without at least the following two conditions obtaining:

(A) Destroying and consuming (in a sort of cannibalistic sense) other life forms as food (part of the struggle or competition for survival), and

(B) Reproducing their kind. This can be described as passing on their accumulated genetic heritage, which is each species' own unique recorded 'advice' (as it were) on how best to survive in the 'jungle'. In addition to merely reproducing, they must also do their best to see to it that more members of their family, tribe, nation, or species survive and reproduce than members of other families, tribes, nations, or species. This last is really only another adjunct or description of the above destructive impulse; that is, we may basically say that individual life-forms must destroy other life-forms in order to survive, whether as individual or species. This is the so-called "Law of the Jungle": kill or be killed.

Human beings, though (and this is part of what sets us apart from the other animals)--because of their more logical, reasoning, self-intuitive or reflective minds, and their capacity for highly-developed and highly-expressed emotion of altruism--are capable of significantly delaying and somewhat negating the above-described instinctive bio-survival/reproductive urge, and its attendant destructive impulse. Human beings, we may say, are thus not usually as dominated by this urge and its consequences as are most other species.

However, human beings are still somewhat under the influence of this destructive, self-perpetuating urge, to the degree that we are still animalian and still dominated by our animal genetic heritage (including instincts): we human beings still often seek to harm, persecute, or destroy minorities, which we may define as any individual or sub-group which is significantly different from the majority of the population of any given locale, and which thus seems to pose a threat to the individual/species bio-survival of the societal 'majority'.

This xenophobia and persecution would thus be perfectly explainable in terms of humankind's animal genetic heritage, instincts, and responses to the stimuli presented by other, significantly different people, but it would seem to be a stumbling-block, a primitive animal throwback, standing in the way of humankind's evident future evolutionary path--that is, toward greater use of reason, greater display of altruism, and less dependence upon violent, irrational, 'negative' animal emotion and instinct.

We would, of course, wish to see our species advance in this direction, and decry these recurrent primitive throwbacks of hatred, fear, and persecution. Why, we may (with justification) ask, does this bio-survival/reproductive urge (and its corollaries) still frequently cause human beings to seek to harm or destroy others? Why do reason and altruism (assumed to be growing, developing evolutionary traits native to human beings) seem to periodically fail?

The answers lie somewhere in the following area, I believe:

We may say that this persecution occurs because of the following:

One rather simple explanation is in terms of pure xenophobia: we may say that on a very basic , organic level--the level of simple organism versus organism--whatever is perceived as "not me" is therefore seen as something alien and foreign--something to be always cautiously on guard against as a potential threat to bio-survival; something, therefore, to be overcome and vanquished as a potential threat. This will all become much clearer if we picture ourselves on the level of the paramecium, for example. This very primitive and ancient instinctual urge or perception is offset somewhat--but never completely negated--by the additional survival instinct of altruism, that is, the urge toward nurturing our offspring as insurance toward the survival of the personal/tribal/species gene pool.

Another way of stating this would be to say that misunderstanding, fear and hatred are negative and undesirable primitive animal-like emotional reactions to perceived threats to the gene pool, and/or the bio-survival/reproductive urge, and to perceived violations of the cultural 'taboos' which are nominally structured to protect the same, and that

This misunderstanding, fear, and hatred can develop between individuals, or between individuals and groups, or between a 'majority' grouping and a minority or minorities, and that

These undesirable 'negative' emotional reactions occur--in individuals and in entire societies--because reason and altruism fail to counteract or control them.

WHY? Reason and Altruism (I believe) fail to control these undesirable emotional reactions usually because life and survival are still so often so precarious and uncertain for most human beings (as indeed for all other life-forms). In instances of inadequate or failed communication (which can lead to distrust and misunderstanding), and/or instances of unusually strong perceived threats to bio-survival, the gene pool, or 'taboos', most human beings will (naturally and understandably) be unable to interpose with reason and altruism (though this does not excuse them), and will instead react with hatred, fear and violence toward anything or anyone which seems to threaten "my life," "my offspring," "my family," "my tribe," etc., or any other aspect of the comfortable 'status quo' system which supports these ends, and provides most human beings with (necessary, we must remind ourselves) existential security, stability, and comfort. (And this definitely includes 'religious' structures.)

Most average human beings will continue to react in this manner until one or both of the following two conditions obtain:

(A) A substantial majority of individual human beings becomes sufficiently intelligent and knowledgable that reason and altruism must more frequently dominate over animal emotion and instinct (and this is of course an evolutionary process, as I have already said), and

(B) That life and survival are no longer precarious and uncertain for most human beings, and that they therefore may become more complacent and tolerant from lack of worry and extreme.

T.J.White, August, 1994

Various Thoughts on Nonconfornity

2005-01-03T17:16:00.000-08:00

Human will begins in a "no." The "no" is a protest against a world we never made, and it is also the assertion of one's self in the endeavor to remold and reform the world.

Rollo May (b.1909), Existential therapist, humanist,
in Love and Will (1969)

[Quoted in Seldes, The Great Thoughts (1980), as
hereafter, unless otherwise stated.]

__________________

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950),
Maxims for Revolutionists

__________________

Men have always looked before and after, and rebelled against the existing order. But for their divine discontent men would not have been men, and there would have been no progress in human affairs.

Kabir (1400-1499),
Hindu philosopher and reformer

__________________

Innovators have done the greatest service to society. ...

John Addington Symonds (1840-1893),
in Sexual Inversion

__________________

As a child, ornithologist Roger Tory Peterson was, as he put it, "Reluctant to accept the straitjacket of a world I didn't comprehend."

from Birds Over America, quoted in Reader's Digest.

__________________

To be a revolutionary is to love your life enough to change it, to choose struggle instead of exile, to risk everything with only the glimmering hope of a world to win.

Andrew David Kopkind (b.1935),
American writer,
quoted in New York Times Magazine, November 10, 1968.

___________________

Persecution is the first law of society because it is always easier to suppress criticism than to meet it.

Howard Mumford Jones (1892-1980),
Primer of Intellectual Freedom (1949), "Introduction".

___________________

A great poet has seldom sung of lawfully wedded happiness, but often of free and secret love, and in this respect, too, the time is coming when there will no longer be one standard of morality for poetry, and another for life.

Ellen Key (1849-1926),
Swedish writer and feminist,
quoted in Sprading, Liberty and the Great Libertarians (1913).

___________________

All art is based on non-conformity.

Ben Shahn (1898-1969),
American artist,
contribution, Atlantic, September 1957.

___________________

The degree of non-conformity present--and tolerated--in a society might be looked upon as a symptom of its state of health.

Ben Shahn, The Shape of Content (1957)

___________________

An artist is always out of step with the time. He has to be.

Orson Welles (1916-198?),
American actor and producer,
quoted in New York Times, August 7, 1966.

___________________

Art for me ... is a negation of society, an affirmation of the individual, outside of all the rules and all the demands of society.

Emile Zola (1840-1902),
French novelist,
in Mes Haines (1866)

___________________

"I will not cease from mental fight," Blake wrote. Mental fight means thinking against the current, not with it. ... It is our business to puncture gas bags and discover the seeds of truth.

Virginia Woolf (1882-1941),
British writer,
contribution, New Republic, October 21, 1940.

___________________

Art is always subversive. It's something that should NOT be free. Art and liberty, like the fire of Prometheus, are things that one must steal, to be used against the established order.

Pablo Picasso (1881-1973),
Spanish painter and sculptor,
quoted in Francoise Gilot and Carlton Lake, Life With Picasso (1964).

___________________

Every artist and every poet is an anti-social being.

Picasso, quoted in Saturday Review, May 28, 1966

___________________

What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only his eyes if he is a painter, or his ears if he is a musician, or a lyre at every level of his heart if he is a poet, or, if he is a boxer, only his muscle? On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly alert to the heart-rending, burning, or happy events in the world, moulding himself in their likeness.

How could it be possible to feel no interest in other people and because of an ivory-tower indifference, detach yourself from the life they bring with their open hands?

No, painting is not made to decorate apartments. It is an instrument of war, for attack and defense against the enemy.

Picasso, from a reply to criticism and attacks for joining the French Communist Party during the Spanish Civil War, quoted in Les Lettres Francaises (1944).

___________________

I am a radical of radicals, but I don't belong in any school.

Walt Whitman (1819-1892),
quoted in Horace Traubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden.

___________________

Every thinker puts some portion of an apparently stable world in peril.

John Dewey,
Characters and Events (1929)

___________________

Liberty, then, is the sovereignty of the individual, and never shall man know liberty until each and every individual is acknowledged to be the only legitimate sovereign of his or her own person, time, and property, each living and acting at his own cost; and not until we live in a society where each can exercise his right of sovereignty at all times without clashing with or violating that of others.

To require conformity in the appreciation of sentiments or the interpretation of language, or uniformity of thought, feeling, or action, is a fundamental error in human legislation--a madness which would only be equalled by requiring all to possess the same countenance, the same voice, or the same nature.

Josiah Warren (1799-1874),
American inventor, philosophical anarchist,
credited by John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer with first proclaiming the sovereignty of the individual.

___________________

The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for
unfettered [*] freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of the right to state unpopular views necessarily deprives others of the right to listen to those views. [And perhaps have the chance to exchange error for truth. cf. John Stuart Mill]

C. Vann Woodward (b.1908),
American historian,
Woodward Committee, Report on Free Speech, New York Times, January 28, 1975.

* How can this word possibly be qualified, or otherwise limited? (T.J.W.)

____________________

Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and rebellion.

Oscar Wilde (1854-1900),
The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1895)

____________________

Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.

Earl Warren (1891-1974),
Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court,
Sweezey vs. New Hampshire (1957)

____________________

All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted.

Earl Warren, op. cit.

____________________

Liberty has never come from government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of government. The history of liberty is the history of resistence.

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924),
28th President, U.S.A.,
Address, New York Press Club, May 9, 1912.

____________________

Theodore Roosevelt picked up this last phrase and, apparently not knowing that Jefferson had made a similar declaration, attacked Wilson as a dangerous radical. Compare the following:

As late as 1958, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, when a representative of Americans for Democratic Action read a statement of Thomas Jefferson's, one of the Senators from the State of Utah, A.V. Watkins, denounced it as false and unbelievable. Confronted with the evidence--a letter from Jefferson to Madison in 1787, available in most history books in most of the nation's libraries--Senator Watkins declared, "If Jefferson were here and advocated such a thing, I would move that he be prosecuted." What Jefferson had written to Madison was simply this: "I hold that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing."

George Seldes, The Great Thoughts (1980), Introduction, "Censorship and Suppression".

___________________

Freedom of expression is the well-spring of our civilization. ... The history of civilization is in considerable measure the displacement of error which once held sway as official truth by [*] beliefs which in turn have yielded to other truths. Therefore the liberty of man to search for truth ought not to be fettered, no matter what orthodoxies he may challenge. Liberty of thought soon shrivels without freedom of expression. Nor can truth be pursued in an atmosphere hostile to the endeavor or under dangers which are hazarded only by heroes.

Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965),
U.S. Supreme Court Justice,
concurring opinion, Dennis et al. vs. U.S. (1951).

*I would here insert the words 'previously unpopular' (T.J.W.).

____________________

It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living.

Bertrand Russell (1879-1970),
Skeptical Essays (1928), XII.

____________________

To be nobody-but-myself--in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else--means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight, and never stop fighting.

e.e.cummings (1894-1963),

Letter to a high school editor, 1955.

Housman on Nonconformity

2004-12-13T16:35:00.000-08:00

'The laws of God, the laws of man'

The laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I, and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbour to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
With jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how am I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.

A.E.Housman (1859-1936),
quoted in "The Penguin Book of Homosexual Verse"
Stephen Coote, editor.

Orwell on Nonconformity

2004-12-13T16:25:00.000-08:00

In a society in which there is no law, and in theory no compulsion, the only arbiter of behavior is public opinion. But public opinion, because of the tremendous urge to conformity in gregarious animals, is less tolerant than any system of law.

George Orwell (1903-1950), ne Eric Blair,
from "Selected Essays",
quoted in Seldes, "The Great Thoughts" (1980).

Freedom from Repression?

2004-12-07T15:36:00.000-08:00

Justice demands that all be treated equally--that no one viewpoint be forced upon others who may wish to go their own way--that everyone should be free to go his own way, separate from majorities, if that be his wish, so long as no one else is deprived or harmed thereby.

Camille Paglia is quoted in the Spring, 1995 issue of "Free Inquiry" (pages 6-7) as saying that "the strange truncations, limitations, and repressions of Judeo-Christianity ... have produced the cult of the striving, heroic, turbulent, individual artist. ... [and that] this is part of the greatness of the West. It's based on neurosis and repression. ..."

Or, as interviewer Timothy Madigan paraphrased in the same article: "The artists are somewhat like oysters producing pearls from the irritants of their upbringing."

Firstly, let me say that I am inclined to agree with the accuracy of the above observations. But they raise, however, some intriguing questions--questions which I believe are important enough to deserve honest answers (or honest attempts at answers). Try (if you will) to sharpen your mind on THESE:

Do we not desire a just and equitable society--in other words, a society free from repressions? Do we not desire (as much as reasonably possible) to eradicate those very repressions that (apparently) have historically been the 'friction which produced great art'? Or do we, after all, really wish merely to preserve the 'status quo'--all for the sake of maintaining our present culture, so that still more 'great art' may continue to be produced?

Question: What sort of art would be produced in a society in which such frictions--such repressions--are largely absent? Would it perhaps be nothing more than a visual form of socio-political propagandising, or like the admittedly bland, passionless 'tractor art' of the mid-twentieth-century Soviet Union?

Question: Is adequate justice (or freedom from repression) really POSSIBLE or realistic in present human societies, given our continued ties to and dependence on the primitive, irrational animal emotions of fear, taboo, superstition, and intolerance (or xenophobia)? Are we perhaps fools to desire that the human race evolve away from this animalistic heritage, and to desire moreover that it happen in the short space OF OUR OWN LIFETIMES?

Question: Is a state of freedom from repression (or 'justice') even DESIRABLE in some instances, seeing that such a condition would (so it seems) eradicate the basis of friction which has historically produced great art (or artists)?

It would thus seem that to desire a society where repression is absent is to desire a society where great art or artists (as we have historically known them) WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE.

Question: If great art (and therefore culture) can only be produced under conditions of friction and repression, which do we then desire most--FREEDOM from that repression (and, presumably, more comfortable lives), or great art and culture, and lives made richer because of that culture?--because 'great' art is great, because it speaks more deeply, more directly, more RELEVANTLY, to the archetypes we perceive and feel, or to the strong emotions we experience over the courses of our lives.

Surely, then (I hasten to add), a life or society without great culture would be a fairly BLEAK one--at least to a sensitive, intelligent soul more finely attuned to the emotional or aesthetic content of life--to a human being with the feeling, sensitive soul of a poet (which is the defining hallmark of the true artist, as Thomas Mann said repeatedly earlier in this century).

Well, I frankly admit that I do not have any firm, final answers to these questions I have proposed; like many others before me, I merely seek answers--which phrase I suppose could be more accurately rendered as "I merely seek greater existential security or stability." In this, surely, I am not alone. More directly relevant to the above discussion, I will add that I myself desire both freedom from repression AND great culture. Perhaps I foolishly desire the impossible. ...

And yet ... and yet, we all of us, at some time or another, feel to say that justice and fairness MUST be actual possibilities, beyond mere abstract concepts, because our brains are capable of IMAGINING that they exist. And (more importantly), without the HOPE for a state of (eventual) justice and freedom, how could humankind continue to have the aspirations and the courage to continue living and struggling, and striving to make a better world? I therefore believe that these issues are of fundamental importance.

21 July, 1995--27 February, 1996.

To Mortify the Soul

2004-12-07T14:45:00.000-08:00

Some years ago, after most of a lifetime spent producing what the world, in its vanity, is pleased to call 'works of art', I came to the realisation and determination that I would henceforth no longer produce any artificial, external 'art' of any great consequence, that the only work of 'art' of any value for me was the art of my own person or SOUL. My great work NOW is, therefore--as Whitman said, to create out of my own flesh and soul A GREAT POEM. This undertaking is, to my way of thinking, the greatest work of 'art' possible in a lifetime--to make one's own soul a great poem. And this is a work of art that most of the world will never see, or comprehend, because they "seeing, see not, and hearing, hear not"; they have not the "eyes with which to see" the glorious work I am in the process of producing--a soul refined and purified by the fires of trial and adversity. This is not so much a mortification of the flesh, as it is a mortification of the SOUL. What they THINK they see is a flat failure of a life (and recall that the same thing was said of Thoreau, by no less an eminent divine than Emerson); but oh! what they DO NOT see! THAT is where my true work lies!

16 February, 2003.

Most people spend an inordinate portion of their everyday lives assiduously avoiding life's pitfalls and the resultant pains; I, in contrast, try (as much as I can) to cultivate the direct, subjective emotional experience, not only of life's pure, simple, and sometimes unexpected joys, but also (and moreso, if it is possible) of life's pains and sorrows. Rather than fleeing from depression or sorrow, I try to cultivate them much as one might cultivate a rare, exotic hothouse bloom, yet realising all the while that the wild, lawless jungle of life, like some vast, primitive, ageless Amazon wilderness, is replete with both incredible beauty AND great peril--full of limitless possibility, yes, but also full of the potential for terror, death, and violent, wanton destruction.

My life is an unbelievably stressful balancing act--"a rope stretched over the abyss": some of the few who are acquainted with me at least suspect that I am light-years beyond their own preceptions or abilities. Some fewer of them still have seen occasional glimpses of the truth, and are no longer in any doubt. I am both the brightest hope and the greatest worry of my own family, a family which possesses both extraordinary brilliance and ability AND a tendency toward mediocrity and fearful, superstitious conformity--sometimes manifested in the selfsame individuals. If an individual's genetic make-up (in terms of personality) can be described as a random shuffling of the traits and abilities of one's ancestors, then, in my own case, most of the talents and brilliance which various of my forebears possessed, AS WELL AS many traits which most people today would unhesitatingly label "negative", have clearly and undeniably manifested themselves in my person.

I could even go so far as to correctly state that, in many ways, I am as fearless concerning the exploration of life and thought and (particularly) sexuality as was the infamous Marquis de Sade, despite the fact that I have no interest whatsoever in certain of his pet predilections. With others of them, however, that is most definitely NOT the case. ...

Suffice it to say that, for better or worse, I was dealt a hand by the Universe that was both a potentially winning hand and a potentially LOSING hand--at least in terms of its being very likely to strongly express itself in either direction: "success" or "failure"; or "good" or "bad" (as the world sees such matters, of course)--infinitely moreso, anyway, than in the average, hopelessly mediocre person.

August, 1998. (specific date unrecorded)

_______________________

The natural inheritance of everyone who is capable of spiritual life is an unsubdued forest where the wolf howls and the obscene bird of night chatters.

Henry James, Sr. (1811-1882),
American theologian,
letter to his two sons,
William James and Henry James, Jr.;
quoted in Seldes, "The Great Thoughts" (1980).

John Stuart Mill on Freedom, Individuality, and Nonconformity

2004-12-04T12:38:00.000-08:00

From John Stuart Mill's 1859 treatise "On Liberty" (Chapter One):

In political speculations "the tyranny of the majority" is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard. ...

Society ... practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, ... penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them. ...

The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and have denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief. Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized. ...

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, ... that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any one of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. ...

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign. ...

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. ...

(Chapter Two:)

If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ...

But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is always as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ...

It is a piece of idle sentimentality that truth, merely as truth, has any inherent power denied to error of prevailing against the dungeon and stake. Men are not more zealous for truth than they often are for error ... The real advantage which truth has consists in this, that when an opinion is true, it may be extinguished once, twice, or many times, but in the course of ages there will generally be found persons to rediscover it. ...

There is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions. ... The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy. ...

No one can be a great thinker who does not recognize, that as a thinker it is his first duty to follow his intellect to whatever conclusions it may lead. ...

It can do truth no service to blink [i.e., overlook or ignore] the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teachings has been the work, not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected, the Christian faith. ...

Christian morality (so-called) has all the characters [i.e., 'characteristics'] of a reaction; ... Its ideal is negative rather than positive; passive rather than active; Innocence rather than Nobleness; Abstinince from Evil, rather than energetic Pursuit of Good. ... It holds out the hope of heaven and the threat of hell, as the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life: in this falling far below the best of the ancients, and doing what lies in it to give human morality an essentially selfish character. ... It is essentially the doctrine of passive obedience; it inculcates submission to all authorities found established. ...

(Chapter Three:)

Customs are made for customary circumstances and customary characters. ...

The mind itself is bowed to the yoke: even in what people do for pleasure, conformity is the first thing thought of; they live in crowds: they exercise choice only among things commonly done: peculiarity of taste, eccentricity of conduct, are shunned equally with crimes: until by dint of not following their own nature they have no nature to follow: their human capacities are withered and starved: they become incapable of any strong wishes or native pleasures, and are generally without either opinions or feelings of home growth, or properly their own. ...

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism. ...

In this age, the mere example of nonconformity, the mere refusal to bend the knee to custom, is itself a service. ...

The 'Outsider'

2004-11-30T17:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Nobility or Greatness of Soul

2004-11-30T16:56:00.000-08:00

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.

Mental Freedom

2004-11-30T16:26:00.000-08:00

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.

Nietzsche, Whitman, and Thoreau

2004-11-30T15:34:00.000-08:00

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).

Excerpts from Colin Wilson's "Religion and the Rebel"

2004-11-27T09:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Trading Diamonds for Dust

2004-11-24T16:14:00.000-08:00

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

Thomas Mann's views on homosexuality

2004-11-24T15:29:00.000-08:00

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.

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.

2004-11-23T16:51:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-23T15:07:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-23T13:38:00.000-08:00

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.