They say when you are really intelligent, you are smart enough to know how little you know. Being "part smart" however is our everlasting condition--we are all specialists in one subject--my/your self. But according to Walker Percy, we know less about ourselves than about the rings of Saturn, and far less than the people who see/judge us from the outer crust--and our crustiness reveals more about us than we can contemplate.
One thing the world doesn't need any more of--and will get a lot less of in the future--is how boring and horrible it is living in a small town--Hilary's Village notwithstanding--but she's a Shytown O'burbanite, what does she know about living in a village? "Oh the horror, the horror..."
I remember the song, "Town without Pity," from long ago--I have an alternate story line about that--or maybe it was "Town Without Pitney".....(Gene.)
So this is the eternal cry of the child, "I'm Bored there's Nothin' to Do." Have you ever noticed that these melancholistic laments are in essence also the Whine of poets, who are "so misunderstood? "Be not drunk on whine, in which there is --always--excess)
"Nobody understands me!" Ever consider that that is (a) inevitable--we do have a skin you know; and (b) probably a good thing overall. (see Paul Tournier's "Secrets") A thin skin, by the way, is a bad thing--take a look at your aging arms if you don't believe me.
The reason I thought of this is not from a single influence but many. I have been listening to "I Just Wanna Get Warm" by Mark Heard. His lyrics overall are way above average and do verge on stand-alone poetry. And so this is not "Town Without Pity" but the theme is the same--the majority or even all the small town folks are downers, "cut from the same grey cloth."
(Is it so very interesting that people who don't want to be judged are quite quick to condemn both whole masses of people and, well, "the wrong sort of white person." (See "Stuff White People Like", written by and as a very white person and an insider who can mock his own habits and spare those whom he neither likes nor understands.)
If one really wants to investigate towns without pity, I can't think of any place more hostile to its own inhabitants than Chicago--I will defer on NYC--but from the kind of lances, not lanterns, (Thurber) I am regaled with in TNY there's plenty of mean streets there too-
Is it "regaled" or assailed?"
I speak as a rural person who realizes the vulnerabilities and limitations of a small town--and suffer from some of them--but I am never bored--nor have I understood why anyone living in a world such as ours would be bored. I certainly can be impatient--but that's not boredome but anticipation.
I think of my Dad, who in his youth was certainly no lover of his hometown, Dixon. His hero Hemingway characterized the relatively urban "small town" of Oak Park as the town of "broad lawns and narrow minds"
But my Dad will also tell you that he regrets tremendously moving from Lake Placid FL ( the Caladium Capital of the world) to Jacksonville, which is in fact the largest city in square miles in the USA. He liked Naples FL--when it was small--and moved when it mushroomed. He is like me in that he is a child of the university but would not be comfortable living near one! Somehow this makes perfect sense to me. (See "Rope" the film by A. Hitchcock)
If you have vowed to never speak with a village idiot again, no need for commentary.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
IT'S NOT THE SHOES
It has been observed by many that we tend to become like people with whom we are preoccupied. There is a normal positive aspect to this if we are thinking about those with traits we admire and which we want to emulate.
The mirror image of this is the negative one, i.e. when we are preoccupied not by those we love, but those we detest; therefore we tend to "fight fire with fire." For example, when we accuse people of being paranoid, that is often "the best defense is a good offense." (This happens more frequently when we ourselves do not have much to offer, or have lost love/s, or are depressed and anxious and insecure; or have little positive content to offer others or the world. Defense mechanisms abound when one is not delighted with life itself; as one must logically expect among defensive people and others who become defined by what they are against.
I would not question that such negativity sells well in the marketplace as well as in the arena. It is of course rampant currently because our culture is collapsing and our best days as a nation are also behind us. In other words, to misquote a formerly famous source, "We ain't much, baby, but we're all we got."
One of the best expressions of this by one of the more impartial observers of humankind, Walt Kelly, is, "We have met the enemy and he is us." based on a now lesser known claim by some 19th century leader, who said, "We have met the enemy and he is ours." Both may be cogent. One of the problems with winning is that one side typically "ingests" the other--but often stops there, before digestion i.e. assimilation occurs.
One ancient example would be that the enemies of Israel may not have been able to resist their military incursions--the cultural norm to this day in the Middle East--but there was a "fatal attraction" to the women in their civilizations, and most of the defeated cultures were able to infiltrate their ideas and worship to the highest level--Solomon being a near-perfect example of this. And this "preacher-king" did exactly the opposite of what he tried to teach his son. He became an enemy of Israel because he was preoccupied not by God but the strange lure of the forbidden. Or maybe trapped not only by his essential hedonism, but by the desire to humiliate, which eventually came back on his own head and poisoned his ultimate reputation. Power, esp unchallenged, does strange and contradictory things to the always-frail human mind.
One current example would be the misuse of the word, "fundamentalist." This is the ace in the hole for those with no program but destruction of what has gone before. It was popularized as a term of anti-endearment by such writers as H.L. Mencken and the "American Mercury" magazine which he edited. But as it turned out, this hater of many things was also a closet racist--based on personal taste and certain interpretations of Darwinism/atheism. He hid these writings from the public obviously and I understand that this was not generally known until his letters were read by archivists. This is an example of a man who took the easy road of criticizing others--including anyone committing the sin of moderation--and accusing them of exactly what was inside of him--fundamentally the law of the jungle.
In Mencken's case, he managed to foul the nest of his reputation permanently after he had poisoned it already in private. Who knows what these eagle's nests contain, esp. to those haters that are promoted by the public, which also eats up gossip, and its children.
But I do not want to be preoccupied with the enemies of my existence, my well being, or my soul. I write this to observe that I am a compulsive worrier. That sometimes helps in my job, to be very precise. But like so many professional "virtues" it does not help at home; or in more intimate settings, many of which are precluded by my private pessimism and worries. What I am observing, I observe in myself--as in Screwtape the author was using him to reveal what was often in his own soul. I am way too much involved in my own culture, self-made and the public cultures of the USA today. In order to get free of such muddling, one has to expose them; even then I would be powerless to change, as has always been the case, without outside help. As Glinda the Good said to Dorothy, you have always had the ability to go home again. It's "not the shoes." But that ability that Dorothy had was not brought out in her without the help of family and friends and, yes, witches! (Ouch!)
The mirror image of this is the negative one, i.e. when we are preoccupied not by those we love, but those we detest; therefore we tend to "fight fire with fire." For example, when we accuse people of being paranoid, that is often "the best defense is a good offense." (This happens more frequently when we ourselves do not have much to offer, or have lost love/s, or are depressed and anxious and insecure; or have little positive content to offer others or the world. Defense mechanisms abound when one is not delighted with life itself; as one must logically expect among defensive people and others who become defined by what they are against.
I would not question that such negativity sells well in the marketplace as well as in the arena. It is of course rampant currently because our culture is collapsing and our best days as a nation are also behind us. In other words, to misquote a formerly famous source, "We ain't much, baby, but we're all we got."
One of the best expressions of this by one of the more impartial observers of humankind, Walt Kelly, is, "We have met the enemy and he is us." based on a now lesser known claim by some 19th century leader, who said, "We have met the enemy and he is ours." Both may be cogent. One of the problems with winning is that one side typically "ingests" the other--but often stops there, before digestion i.e. assimilation occurs.
One ancient example would be that the enemies of Israel may not have been able to resist their military incursions--the cultural norm to this day in the Middle East--but there was a "fatal attraction" to the women in their civilizations, and most of the defeated cultures were able to infiltrate their ideas and worship to the highest level--Solomon being a near-perfect example of this. And this "preacher-king" did exactly the opposite of what he tried to teach his son. He became an enemy of Israel because he was preoccupied not by God but the strange lure of the forbidden. Or maybe trapped not only by his essential hedonism, but by the desire to humiliate, which eventually came back on his own head and poisoned his ultimate reputation. Power, esp unchallenged, does strange and contradictory things to the always-frail human mind.
One current example would be the misuse of the word, "fundamentalist." This is the ace in the hole for those with no program but destruction of what has gone before. It was popularized as a term of anti-endearment by such writers as H.L. Mencken and the "American Mercury" magazine which he edited. But as it turned out, this hater of many things was also a closet racist--based on personal taste and certain interpretations of Darwinism/atheism. He hid these writings from the public obviously and I understand that this was not generally known until his letters were read by archivists. This is an example of a man who took the easy road of criticizing others--including anyone committing the sin of moderation--and accusing them of exactly what was inside of him--fundamentally the law of the jungle.
In Mencken's case, he managed to foul the nest of his reputation permanently after he had poisoned it already in private. Who knows what these eagle's nests contain, esp. to those haters that are promoted by the public, which also eats up gossip, and its children.
But I do not want to be preoccupied with the enemies of my existence, my well being, or my soul. I write this to observe that I am a compulsive worrier. That sometimes helps in my job, to be very precise. But like so many professional "virtues" it does not help at home; or in more intimate settings, many of which are precluded by my private pessimism and worries. What I am observing, I observe in myself--as in Screwtape the author was using him to reveal what was often in his own soul. I am way too much involved in my own culture, self-made and the public cultures of the USA today. In order to get free of such muddling, one has to expose them; even then I would be powerless to change, as has always been the case, without outside help. As Glinda the Good said to Dorothy, you have always had the ability to go home again. It's "not the shoes." But that ability that Dorothy had was not brought out in her without the help of family and friends and, yes, witches! (Ouch!)
Saturday, June 16, 2012
"TAKE ME HOME"
Have you ever been looking out over the cornfields while a real front was coming in? It’s rather like science fiction—first the edge of the disc not solid but with wisps of downflowing jellyfish tendrils advancing like a diaphanous trembling curtain; in front of the darkest of blue-grays rather like gun metal, and just as threatening. One looks for whirling anywhere in this mass which stretches over the entire Western sky. Seeing nothing to 911 about, I head for shelter and the cowering shelty…
I suppose the above was inspired by TNY’s science fiction issue, mysteriously published just a few days before the death of my beloved and much admired Ray Bradbury. As could be predicted, like a good futurist or prophet, I have read whatever TNY said about science fiction, not too surprised that after all these years they would give a nod to the master workers of the sci-fi genre. I don’t exactly mean comics and B movies and carnage in which so many exult—the science equivalent of the 3 Stooges—“so bad it’s good.” Although they get more than their due, too, in this “ish.” Gotta use them irony muscles or they’ll rust on ya, doncha know?
My Dad, bless his heart, got me the complete TNY on about 8 discs, for the brief time that they were offered. So I was able to search the entire archive up until about 2-3 years ago when they withdrew the deal and the updates they promised. Sure.
So I was able to search back in my time machine and see what they had published in an author’s lifetime. As I mentioned before, Flannery O’Connor, zero, Walker Percy, zero. And the few reviews of O’Connors work were disdainful and sounded a bit like the ghost of H.L. Mencken.
They did publish one work by Bradbury, about of all things an undocumented alien—not the MIB kind but a very gentle unassuming Mexican who happened to be arrested in –where else?- NYC! Certainly in many ways Bradbury’s vision was more than a little prescient—Farenheit 451 especially—and many other stories wherein our technological society becomes an enforcer and a kind of a “cement mixer” as described by visiting Martians who are overcome not by force but by our materialism—“You’re kinda cute…
Then they go to the movies….and flee back to the fleet…invasion from Mars cancelled forever!!!
(This story was undoubtedly chosen because of its setting so familiar to TNY readers—but Bradbury found large cities thoroughly dystopian and disruptive of reality and fantasy both. As do I.)
That’s kind of how I see the EMR monster—the electronic medical record. But time does not allow me to draw the many parallels which would make our predicament semi-clear.
So they gave Ray, the author of many books stories and screenplays including “Moby Dick,” one page. One page. But in that page is packed a brilliant summary of the trajectory of his life and his works, which was rather a seamless garment. But as one commentator on his work pointed out, he was always going back to an agrarian boyhood in Illinois
He speaks of “fire balloons” from his childhood, made by his Grandpa, something I only saw once in a movie. But this is the end of the article, and I urge the reader to lay aholt of the rest:
“…Late that night, I dreamed the fire balloon came back, and drifted by my window.
Twenty-five years later, I wrote “The Fire Balloons,” a story in which a number of priests fly off to Mars looking for creatures of good will. It is my tribute to those summers when my grandfather was alive. One of those priests was like my grandpa, whom I put on Mars to see the lovely balloons again; but this time they were Martians, all fired and bright, adrift above a dead sea.”
And as I read this again, a gentle rain is coming down after a long withholding, and the jellyfish have brought the sea to me….my books are still safe…
"Bring your vessels not a few."
Most people who have some ambition to read the Bible cover to cover get lost in Leviticus which is largely instructions to the people and the priests as to how to--and how not to--approach God through atoning sacrifices.
But I always get a great deal out of Leviticus--from a medical viewpoint it is fascinating and really ahead of its time; much is made in secular circles of Egyptian medicine at the time, which was a great champion of trephination and fly dung--but from a health and public safety standpoint, it is small wonder that the Hebrews survived to this day, and most of their neighbors did not; The Hittites et. al. were as superstitious as Egypt, which survives but still in an impoverished state. But Jews thrive virtually wherever they go; a source of constant irritation to all other people groups.
Hinduism may be older that Judaism; but if so it is hence considerably more modern than average. In the sense that there is a seminal democratic element in it. I was struck this time about how, if a leper touched a clay pot, it had to be not only thrown away but crushed. This smashing of clay vessels has a parallel in Hinduism, where a whole segment of society is hereditarily and permanently unclean--not just ceremonially but overall, in every possible application. The difference is that the Jews prescibed and the Hindus proscribe the "unclean."
I have on my desk a drinking vessel from India, very simple, fashioned from red clay, which represents the custom of dealing with "Harijans" or "Dalits" to this day. Street vendors have a supply of these cups--they will sell a drink to anyone, but if he sells to a Dalit, he has to, in public, smash the cup after the Untouchable finishes it--it appears that the Dalit can't even take the cup home! This amounts to a public ceremony of millenia of deliberate and repeated humiliations, to presumably keep the Dalits from getting too upity or getting any hope of advancement. (The organization is DalitNetwork.org and their project is called, "Share the Well." I think I can safely recommend it tho I haven't checked on it personally.)
There was an excellent review of the movie "Ghandi" in Commentary magazine when the movie first came out that reviewed not only little-known facts about Ghandi--he took penecillin for his infections but denied it to his wife, whom he described as a cow, and not a sacred one either. Needless to say his public image as a Messiah was not what he was like on the local level, where he was a literal terror to his own.
This article noted also that Hinduism, at best, is a religion of stasis--rather like the Southern Baptists who incepted as a protest of not only losing the war but to be a bastion against the "Advancement of Colored People," even rapid change if one uses the Hindu Timeline: which in turn inspired ML King and the NAACP. My point would be that there was always hope for change. And change has now come, full circle, with the election of Fred Luter to replace Richard Land as the leader of the denomination.(see World magazine June 16 p. 60)
My late friend Mahendra was a mathematician who also studied Hindu philosophy at Oxford but after researching his heritage more than most, elected to leave Hinduism for following Christ. (Not uncommon among the contemporary Dalits who also tend towards Buddhism too now); he said that one word sufficed to describe Hinduism and that is, "Hopeless" One cannot move in status until after death; now Mahendra was full of advantages, coming from a high caste Hindu family: his father was friends with the Ghandi family. Nonetheless, Mahendra had to flee because his uncle tried to kill him; and he was literally erased from the family tree--no one was to even acknowledge that he had ever existed. This is how very fierce Hindu fundamentalism can be. In certain areas of India where change is threatened, churches are routinely burned and fleeing Christians killed, esp in the state of Orissa. Even the government of India admits this but their efforts to quell it have been unsuccessful. All the policemen in the world can't be everywhere all the time.
One of the many things that halted my explorations of Hinduism after visiting India in the 70's--somewhat akin to American intellectuals paying homage to the worker's paradise of Father Joe Stalin and coming back with glowing reports--was that in the Hindu paradigm I was treated well because I was a medical student, which made me high caste--very embarrassing in retrospect--but now I realize that forgiveness is not needed in the caste system--"one is what one is--no use wriggling" --from which standpoint, as Mahendra noted, there is no real difference between kindness and cruelty. (Need I point out the obvious parallels to Darwinist fundamentalism?)
(It is also true that the Brits had to pass a law against burning of wives in their husband's funeral pyre--against the ferocious opposition of Hindus all over the country--and it is still practiced quietly and "voluntarily" in remote areas.)
This is something to consider when people say that all religions are the same and of equal value and lead to the "same place" --in terms of death, that's true but there the resemblance stops. Nor is, say, Nazi Kultur equally valid as most other cultures. As far as works-based religions, which are inherently political in nature, there isn't much difference either--these are "systems" but Christ is not a "system" which is why the world at its best is utterly puzzled by Jesus. Is he liberal? Conservative? To once again quote Walker Percy, "I no longer know what those words mean." In the context of an article in which he lays out his own faith in Christ.
But I always get a great deal out of Leviticus--from a medical viewpoint it is fascinating and really ahead of its time; much is made in secular circles of Egyptian medicine at the time, which was a great champion of trephination and fly dung--but from a health and public safety standpoint, it is small wonder that the Hebrews survived to this day, and most of their neighbors did not; The Hittites et. al. were as superstitious as Egypt, which survives but still in an impoverished state. But Jews thrive virtually wherever they go; a source of constant irritation to all other people groups.
Hinduism may be older that Judaism; but if so it is hence considerably more modern than average. In the sense that there is a seminal democratic element in it. I was struck this time about how, if a leper touched a clay pot, it had to be not only thrown away but crushed. This smashing of clay vessels has a parallel in Hinduism, where a whole segment of society is hereditarily and permanently unclean--not just ceremonially but overall, in every possible application. The difference is that the Jews prescibed and the Hindus proscribe the "unclean."
I have on my desk a drinking vessel from India, very simple, fashioned from red clay, which represents the custom of dealing with "Harijans" or "Dalits" to this day. Street vendors have a supply of these cups--they will sell a drink to anyone, but if he sells to a Dalit, he has to, in public, smash the cup after the Untouchable finishes it--it appears that the Dalit can't even take the cup home! This amounts to a public ceremony of millenia of deliberate and repeated humiliations, to presumably keep the Dalits from getting too upity or getting any hope of advancement. (The organization is DalitNetwork.org and their project is called, "Share the Well." I think I can safely recommend it tho I haven't checked on it personally.)
There was an excellent review of the movie "Ghandi" in Commentary magazine when the movie first came out that reviewed not only little-known facts about Ghandi--he took penecillin for his infections but denied it to his wife, whom he described as a cow, and not a sacred one either. Needless to say his public image as a Messiah was not what he was like on the local level, where he was a literal terror to his own.
This article noted also that Hinduism, at best, is a religion of stasis--rather like the Southern Baptists who incepted as a protest of not only losing the war but to be a bastion against the "Advancement of Colored People," even rapid change if one uses the Hindu Timeline: which in turn inspired ML King and the NAACP. My point would be that there was always hope for change. And change has now come, full circle, with the election of Fred Luter to replace Richard Land as the leader of the denomination.(see World magazine June 16 p. 60)
My late friend Mahendra was a mathematician who also studied Hindu philosophy at Oxford but after researching his heritage more than most, elected to leave Hinduism for following Christ. (Not uncommon among the contemporary Dalits who also tend towards Buddhism too now); he said that one word sufficed to describe Hinduism and that is, "Hopeless" One cannot move in status until after death; now Mahendra was full of advantages, coming from a high caste Hindu family: his father was friends with the Ghandi family. Nonetheless, Mahendra had to flee because his uncle tried to kill him; and he was literally erased from the family tree--no one was to even acknowledge that he had ever existed. This is how very fierce Hindu fundamentalism can be. In certain areas of India where change is threatened, churches are routinely burned and fleeing Christians killed, esp in the state of Orissa. Even the government of India admits this but their efforts to quell it have been unsuccessful. All the policemen in the world can't be everywhere all the time.
One of the many things that halted my explorations of Hinduism after visiting India in the 70's--somewhat akin to American intellectuals paying homage to the worker's paradise of Father Joe Stalin and coming back with glowing reports--was that in the Hindu paradigm I was treated well because I was a medical student, which made me high caste--very embarrassing in retrospect--but now I realize that forgiveness is not needed in the caste system--"one is what one is--no use wriggling" --from which standpoint, as Mahendra noted, there is no real difference between kindness and cruelty. (Need I point out the obvious parallels to Darwinist fundamentalism?)
(It is also true that the Brits had to pass a law against burning of wives in their husband's funeral pyre--against the ferocious opposition of Hindus all over the country--and it is still practiced quietly and "voluntarily" in remote areas.)
This is something to consider when people say that all religions are the same and of equal value and lead to the "same place" --in terms of death, that's true but there the resemblance stops. Nor is, say, Nazi Kultur equally valid as most other cultures. As far as works-based religions, which are inherently political in nature, there isn't much difference either--these are "systems" but Christ is not a "system" which is why the world at its best is utterly puzzled by Jesus. Is he liberal? Conservative? To once again quote Walker Percy, "I no longer know what those words mean." In the context of an article in which he lays out his own faith in Christ.
Friday, June 15, 2012
The Clever-Lever
" Cleverness is good, but (something else) is better."
I will have to ask Flo if she remembers the rest of this, but this was the "marriage motto" of the couple in whose house she and I first met; so I am forever grateful for their "houspitality" on that day. They already had at least one child by then and were a bit older than us. I assume that the "something else" might have been something like "kindness" or "compassion"--but it's probably more "clever" than that.
I have in the last 35 years come to the conclusion that cleverness is not good for much. It is more or less meant to draw attention to itself, and I fail to see the gain in that; and can sense much loss if this tool is misapplied. Obviously it is a gift; since most of us have a very limited supply of it--but is it not also deception universale, since compared to God we are not clever at all?
So it is in essence more of a "clever" concept than a reality--or denial/evasion rolled up into one tight little ball of self-persuasion?
Thinking things through to their logical conclusion is the opposite of "cleverness" in that if one is consistently logical it will lead, as it did for Aristotle, to the reality of at the very least a "Prime Mover." But internal logic from within that leads to the inevitable conclusions that, "He can, I can't" and from thence, "I think I'll let Him." (This is a summation of the first couple of steps of the 12 step program--something that was essential for me to understand that God is not a concept but an actual affective/effective Real Live Being--far beyond mere biology but creating biology and tasting of it as well, for our sakes by actions that are not mere theory or discussion points or speculation; but also) far beyond the ken of the Very Cleverest Indeed, their role model being Supreme Commander Screwtape... whose desire to get as far from God as possible has already been granted in spades. As CSL once said, men pursue God in the same way that mice seek the cat--in order to stay away from it. Wish granted? Far too often, yes...
I will have to ask Flo if she remembers the rest of this, but this was the "marriage motto" of the couple in whose house she and I first met; so I am forever grateful for their "houspitality" on that day. They already had at least one child by then and were a bit older than us. I assume that the "something else" might have been something like "kindness" or "compassion"--but it's probably more "clever" than that.
I have in the last 35 years come to the conclusion that cleverness is not good for much. It is more or less meant to draw attention to itself, and I fail to see the gain in that; and can sense much loss if this tool is misapplied. Obviously it is a gift; since most of us have a very limited supply of it--but is it not also deception universale, since compared to God we are not clever at all?
So it is in essence more of a "clever" concept than a reality--or denial/evasion rolled up into one tight little ball of self-persuasion?
Thinking things through to their logical conclusion is the opposite of "cleverness" in that if one is consistently logical it will lead, as it did for Aristotle, to the reality of at the very least a "Prime Mover." But internal logic from within that leads to the inevitable conclusions that, "He can, I can't" and from thence, "I think I'll let Him." (This is a summation of the first couple of steps of the 12 step program--something that was essential for me to understand that God is not a concept but an actual affective/effective Real Live Being--far beyond mere biology but creating biology and tasting of it as well, for our sakes by actions that are not mere theory or discussion points or speculation; but also) far beyond the ken of the Very Cleverest Indeed, their role model being Supreme Commander Screwtape... whose desire to get as far from God as possible has already been granted in spades. As CSL once said, men pursue God in the same way that mice seek the cat--in order to stay away from it. Wish granted? Far too often, yes...
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Tales of...
"Is it a sign/or is it a sail?
Sometimes out here/ it's hard to tail."
-- "The Prairie Schooner"
("Wanted--used signs for sale")
Sometimes out here/ it's hard to tail."
-- "The Prairie Schooner"
("Wanted--used signs for sale")
Monday, June 11, 2012
COMEDIANS SAY THE_______EST THINGS.
I recently read a quote from George Carlin (Yes the now-that-I've got-your-attention Carlin) which I now cannot find, so I won't say it as comically, but the gist of it is:
"People who say, 'I don't care what people think!" care a great deal about 'what people think;' maybe more than most people."
Comedians certainly think a great deal about what others think--or they would not be comedians, actors, and so on. Even good old Sam Beckett thought a great deal about his audience, especially in his best known work; very much designed to get a specific response from a certain group of people--leaders of the people, in fact.
Science cares a very great deal about "what will people think"--and goes nowhere unless and until the broader culture has already gotten there first. The little story of the Turkish astronomer and the Little Prince's asteroid says this almost perfectly, in miniature of course.
("It's only a model...")
The amount of inner turmoil experienced by those who protest that, "I don't care what people think," is first of all immeasurable, and second of all can be presumed to be immense. "By their fruits you shall know them." Jesus too thought a great deal about what people thought; and think today; not about His reputation, which is another matter entirely--that had already been ruined by the time He got to the Cross. The difference between Him and us is that we are almost exclusively concerned about ourselves, and His concern is in every way bent towards our benefit--our real and lasting benefit, as opposed to our view of making sure we are heard loud and clear, but especdially loudly--and making sure that we "sell well," on the scales of human measures; having just enough God Jargon to advance our own causes and justify our existence and our trespasses against mankind, God, and many individuals. Anyone care to define, "spiritual" as the world uses it today? It is almost an ad jingle at times.
Once again, I do not excuse myself from the category of the ordinary human response to the Darwinian aspects of life--where I balk is I don't believe that macrevolution even begins to be a theory of everything, whether purely scintifically speaking, or metaphysically, the latter being a field wherein most scientists are not prepared to give an answer or even to formulate the right questions. I would also disclaim that the present is the key to the past--how would you prove that? That's an assumption, not even a theory, since a theory is something that is at least potentially falsifiable. There's where it is possible to agree with the "extreme sport" Darwinists who say that Darwinism is not a theory--no and it never was; it is a cultural assumption caused by or at least concurrent with the Industrial Revolution. So in fact it is a political "fact" taken by faith and yes, wish fulfillment. It has been around since before the Greeks; but our present production-obsessed society now demands it and Presto, It Is A Fact! (In the context of its own jelly of course...)
"People who say, 'I don't care what people think!" care a great deal about 'what people think;' maybe more than most people."
Comedians certainly think a great deal about what others think--or they would not be comedians, actors, and so on. Even good old Sam Beckett thought a great deal about his audience, especially in his best known work; very much designed to get a specific response from a certain group of people--leaders of the people, in fact.
Science cares a very great deal about "what will people think"--and goes nowhere unless and until the broader culture has already gotten there first. The little story of the Turkish astronomer and the Little Prince's asteroid says this almost perfectly, in miniature of course.
("It's only a model...")
The amount of inner turmoil experienced by those who protest that, "I don't care what people think," is first of all immeasurable, and second of all can be presumed to be immense. "By their fruits you shall know them." Jesus too thought a great deal about what people thought; and think today; not about His reputation, which is another matter entirely--that had already been ruined by the time He got to the Cross. The difference between Him and us is that we are almost exclusively concerned about ourselves, and His concern is in every way bent towards our benefit--our real and lasting benefit, as opposed to our view of making sure we are heard loud and clear, but especdially loudly--and making sure that we "sell well," on the scales of human measures; having just enough God Jargon to advance our own causes and justify our existence and our trespasses against mankind, God, and many individuals. Anyone care to define, "spiritual" as the world uses it today? It is almost an ad jingle at times.
Once again, I do not excuse myself from the category of the ordinary human response to the Darwinian aspects of life--where I balk is I don't believe that macrevolution even begins to be a theory of everything, whether purely scintifically speaking, or metaphysically, the latter being a field wherein most scientists are not prepared to give an answer or even to formulate the right questions. I would also disclaim that the present is the key to the past--how would you prove that? That's an assumption, not even a theory, since a theory is something that is at least potentially falsifiable. There's where it is possible to agree with the "extreme sport" Darwinists who say that Darwinism is not a theory--no and it never was; it is a cultural assumption caused by or at least concurrent with the Industrial Revolution. So in fact it is a political "fact" taken by faith and yes, wish fulfillment. It has been around since before the Greeks; but our present production-obsessed society now demands it and Presto, It Is A Fact! (In the context of its own jelly of course...)
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Live Gren
As isn't my wont, I am publishing something of praise. I refer specifically to the work of Kerry Livgren, someone whose work I have admired for years, but whose present work is largely unknown. I have referred to Kerry Livgren in passing sometime in the remote past; he was the driving force behind the band "Kansas, "and was one of the first performers whose work would be described as art rock. In troubled times I will often put on his only instrumental album, "One of Several Possible Musicks"
The titles may give the reader a clue as to the wide range Livgren possessed:
1-Ancient Wing
2 And I Saw, as it Were...Konelrad
3 Colonnade Gardens.
4 In the Sides of the North
5 Alenna in the Sun
Side 2
1 Tannin Danse
2 The Far Country.
3 Diaspora
3 A Fistful of Drachma
5 Tenth of Nisan
My personal favorite-- with a surprise ending-- is "Diaspora" because it has so many elements yet moves as a perfect whole to a very specific climax.
This album of course has been largely overlooked since Livgren left Kansas, which was never the same afterwords. Years later he volunteered to write an album for Kansas which recaptured the former style; he continues to put out rock albums under the name of "Proto-Kaw" which I might call less art rock than "Prairie Rock." His emphasis has continued to change but the quality of the music itself continues to get better. It's not for everyone of course--not everyone has the patience for a song not just with a chorus and bridge but several movements. Obviously my suggestion is to listen to a few of these. I might add that he is not only the composer of the instrumentals but played most of the instruments himself.
The titles may give the reader a clue as to the wide range Livgren possessed:
1-Ancient Wing
2 And I Saw, as it Were...Konelrad
3 Colonnade Gardens.
4 In the Sides of the North
5 Alenna in the Sun
Side 2
1 Tannin Danse
2 The Far Country.
3 Diaspora
3 A Fistful of Drachma
5 Tenth of Nisan
My personal favorite-- with a surprise ending-- is "Diaspora" because it has so many elements yet moves as a perfect whole to a very specific climax.
This album of course has been largely overlooked since Livgren left Kansas, which was never the same afterwords. Years later he volunteered to write an album for Kansas which recaptured the former style; he continues to put out rock albums under the name of "Proto-Kaw" which I might call less art rock than "Prairie Rock." His emphasis has continued to change but the quality of the music itself continues to get better. It's not for everyone of course--not everyone has the patience for a song not just with a chorus and bridge but several movements. Obviously my suggestion is to listen to a few of these. I might add that he is not only the composer of the instrumentals but played most of the instruments himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)