"Peace will come to the hearts of men when they realize their oneness with the universe. It is every where."
-- Black Elk
"The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff."
-- Carl Sagan
Rather than spend today focusing on fear and phobias, I figured that we would take a moment to look at the beauty around us, to cherish our world and our opportunity to live in it. Most importantly, let's rejoice in the company of those we love, present and past and future.
There are so many wonderful things that we may experience and learn. Let's take a day to live it.
Spring flowers, pink and bright
And another quote:
"Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them."
-- Marcus Aurelius
Well, I haven't very much to share with you today. However, I do have this photo.
I encourage you to engage in your creative faculties. Embrace your inner artiste and discern the significance of this image for yourself. After all, according to contemporary critical theory, no work of art is completed until the viewer finds a personal meaning for him or herself.
So, what does this work say to you? Given your personal experience, your prominence as the height of Creation, what does it all mean?!!! Only your personal genius can bring order from chaos, establishing the Foundation from the Void.
Every so often, it's important to reflect upon the cruelty and brutality that we humans inflict upon each other through warfare. Whatever the cause, be it religion or nationalism or political philosophy, the consequences are terrible. The horrible suffering brought by war is rarely justified. Even more uncommon is when justice prevails after the conflict is resolved.
Currently, the USA is involved in a long war in Afghanistan. At this point in the conflict, there seems to be little point to American presence in this far off country. Moreover, it seems that nothing good is coming out from American actions. There is only pain and terror for the Afghan people who are caught between the US-led occupation and the Taliban-led insurgency.
What should be done to promote peace and liberty? I don't know. However, my guideline on dealing with crisis management is: if you're not helping, get out of the way. I think that's probably a good idea for US foreign policy as well.
Detail of Plate 71 "Against the Common Good" from The Disasters of War by Francisco Goya
I don't like getting political here at Paideia, but the Third of May seems a proper day to reflect on warfare and its costs.
I'm not one for internet memes, but there's a vid of Lindsay Lohan aging, from childhood to today, 25 years, compelling in its creepiness. It actually pains me to see this darling child morph over the years, looking more my age than her own.
In any case, the video is like a modern day vanitas. Here it is:
Disturbing. . . here's to hoping for happiness and good health for Lindsay and all of us poor mortals, suffering from the ravages of time.
Currently on exhibit at dnj Gallery is "Surplus" by Michael Krebs, a critique of consumerist corporate social influence and the commodification of desire, in which iconic images of war and armed strife are reimagined within a banal "market" context.
To be honest, I'm of mixed feelings about the appropriation of such imagery for this premise. Although the image of a girl screaming and running down a toy store aisle lined with packaged plastic dolls, fleeing as though in mortal danger, conveys both an absurdly humorous feeling and a creepy consideration of how children are indoctrinated into consumerist mindsets, the fact that it is a reflection, a tableau malsain of Nick Ut's iconic image of a Vietnamese girl fleeing from a napalm bombing, leaves me a bit uncomfortable. And perhaps that is the intention; perhaps it raises the question of how materialist values harm the individuals of a society.
I suppose it comes down to envy and banality. War is instigated by envy on a societal scale and implemented by the most basic and brutish and banal methods of coercion. Likewise, consumerist society is predicated on envy, "keeping up with the Jones" or constantly buying the newest model merely to preserve a social standing, never satisfied when others have "more" or "better" without making a raise or call, even if that which is desired is banal mass marketed trash, empty pablum.
Detail of Surplus I by Michael Krebs
In the end, both result in destruction. In war, the devastation is measured in lives and suffering. In consumerism, it is in wasted resources and misguided lives, a painful opportunity cost squandered on mounds of rubbish.
Peter Finch as Howard Beale in Network (1976) delivering the "Mad as Hell" speech
Today is "I'm Not Going to Take It Anymore" Day.
I find it odd how popular culture has such fondness for this scene from Network. In the "Mad as Hell" speech, Howard Beale isn't imparting information or advice to the viewers, but, rather, he is engaged in a pointless rant of enraged demagoguery; he is angry and wishes to vent it in pointless yelling. Whereas he ought to be delivering the News, Beale instead provides fury-laced "info-tainment" of no value.
Yet, many people consider this scene to be inspirational?!! Heck, JGWentworth financial services even references this scene as a positive model in an especially annoying commercial.
It is as if the cultivation of loud-mouthed discontentment is a civic virtue. It is as if perceived victimization allows one to wear a mantle of self-righteousness. It is the elevation of aggressive self-entitlement over cooperative rationality and the civil resolution of complaints.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't problems in the world that inspire anger. Rather, I'm saying that rage in and of itself is not an answer to these problems. In fact, blind fury is often an impediment to one's ability to find a lasting resolution to such problems.
My point is that happiness is more reliably derived from taking positive actions to make the world into a better place, while anger-fueled self-aggrandizement leads only to failure and further frustration. Moreover, it is best to remember the old saying, "Don't get angry. Get even." ;-)
Coinciding with Christmas Eve, December 24th marks the birth date of Johnny Gruelle, born in 1880, known primarily as the creator of Raggedy Ann, first published in 1918.
I find something very charming about the simple, old-fashioned rag doll. Unlike ceramic dolls of the era, rag dolls were made for play, to get tossed around, to get dirty. They weren't put up on a shelf for display, touched only for dusting. And unlike later mass produced dolls, the humble handcrafted doll was unique, and not in a faddish "cabbage patch" way.
Now, fancy high tech gifts can be useful, and elite expensive treats are enviable, but sometimes the simple things are the most memorable and lasting presents of them all.
"Flying with the kite" from Raggedy Ann Stories (1918) by Johnny Gruelle
So, let's be thankful for the gifts which we have and will receive. Let's wish that others will find happiness in that which they shall receive. :-)
We've got a few Disney-related events to celebrate today.
The French composer, Paul Dukas, was born on this date in 1865. His most famous work was the Sorcerer's Apprentice, which has become inextricably connected with the Disney interpretation in the 1940 cinematic feature Fantasia. I have a special love for the Sorcerer's Apprentice because of how it serves as an example against the modern Disney-influenced concept of intellectual property.
Let me explain. The history of the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" story spans over 2000 years. In ancient Egypt, there was a believe that magical funerary figures, ushabti, could be enchanted so as to perform one's work in the afterlife. Playing off of this belief, the ancient Greek satirist, Lucian of Samosata, created the basic narrative as we now know it in his work, the Philopseudes, written c.150 AD. Centuries later, the German writer, Goethe, does a "remake" of the story in his poem Der Zauberlehrling. This poem inspired Dukas to create his tone poem. And Disney uses the music as the basis for the wonderful scene in Fantasia.
It's really cool to see how different minds shaped the underlying source material over the centuries. It's too bad that modern "property" restrictions make creating works of derived influence a risky legal endeavor. Fortunately, contemporary "mash up" projects in music and literature are bringing the Disney "property" paradigm into question.
A little monkey goes like a donkey that means to say that means to say that more sighs last goes. Leave with it. A little monkey goes like a donkey.
I had the good fortune to be able to attend the Blessing of the Animals last weekend at Wayfarers Chapel. Seeing animals participate in peaceful religious ceremonies always charms me. First, I'm amazed that chaos doesn't break out derailing the whole event. Seriously, how do you gather together a group of semi-wild beasts and not have mayhem prevail? Dogs and cats, bunnies and snakes, these creatures can be querulous at any given moment. How is it that they become relatively well-behaved at these types of events?
Second, the compassion that the human participants have for their beastly companions is touching. Bringing their pets to the ceremony is important to the pet owners. The wish to share the spiritual consolations of the faith with their beloved animal "family members" is admirable. It is an obvious expression of love and charity. And that's why I find it so moving.
I'm happy that modern American spirituality has mostly rejected the old Creation hating attitude that has dominated most of the Christian tradition. With a few notable exceptions, such as St. Francis of Assisi, animals have been considered soulless creatures, unworthy of affection. Bah!!! I say good riddance to Medieval human arrogance and meanness of empathy.
These beasties might not have the gift of advanced reason, but they can certainly feel pleasure and devotion towards their human friends. So, why wouldn't a loving and benevolent Divinity extend blessings unto them?
She is one of my favorite painters of the Baroque era. The dramatic realism and intense contrast of shadow and light are filled with intense emotion. Fear, rage, horror, confusion and pain are expressed with an unflinching visceral honesty. Many of her peers of the Italian Baroque adhere to an interesting but artificial mannerism, even Caravaggio gets occasionally caught up in the stylistics. Artemisia works within the same tradition, but maintains a powerful sense of authenticity throughout her career.
Sadly, there is a well-intentioned but misguided reductionist interpretation of her works that dominates both public and academic analysis. As a teen, Artemisia was raped by her tutor and, when pressing charges against her assailant, she was subjected to torture by thumbscrews as a part of her testimony. Obviously, such an experience is going to have a profound effect upon her psychological state, which will then be expressed through her art.
It is true that many of her paintings focus on themes relating to sexual victimization and powerful women. But she has many works that don't deal with such themes. To reduce her creative aesthetic to this "one note" thematic expression is a needless reduction. I feel it is better to study Artemisia just as one would any great artist of the Italian Baroque and then focus on the gender related themes. To do otherwise is to reduce her to a proto-feminist icon.
Lot and His Daughters (c. 1640s) by Artemisia Gentileschi
As a comparison, would we limit our appreciation of Raphael to his "Madonna and Child" works? Is the study of Andy Warhol limited to his "Campbell Soup" works? Do we limit our Rembrandt studies to his self-portraits?
Recently, there has been a bit of a stir regarding a Yoplait Yogurt ad. The commercial features a lady (Emily Tarver) opening an office refrigerator and seeing a raspberry cheesecake. She is instantly struck with a desire for the cake and begins to mentally negotiate with herself to create conditions by which she will feel justified in eating it.
A co-worker arrives and grabs a Yoplait Yogurt "Cheesecake" container, expressing great desire for the yogurt. The first lady notices that her co-worker had "lost weight" so immediately decides to have a yogurt herself instead of the actual cheesecake. She is later shown to be enjoying her selection.
That sounds rather harmless. However, the National Eating Disorder Association protested the ad, claiming that it encourages a behavioral pattern utilized by women suffering from eating disorders such as anorexia. The extended mental negotiation portrayed in the ad is symptomatic of someone suffering from negative body image, at the least. Therefore, this ad is transmitting a meme to women who are either suffering from such a disorder or who may be susceptible to such disorders, encouraging them to use Yoplait yogurt as a way to placate the impulse towards mental bargaining.
In short, this ad posits an unhealthy mental disposition as a typical state. Given such a state, this ad suggests its product as way to appease the disorder. That's problematic.
I am not a fan of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Yes, there is a great deal to admire and appreciate about Scripture. Giving it a full and honest reading is a worthwhile endeavor and can certainly bring knowledge and wisdom. However, there is plenty of objectionable stuff as well, products of a tribalistic Bronze Age mentality.
Since today is the Feast Day of the Prophet Elisha, let's reflect on this passage from 2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV):
And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
Yeah, that's quite a disproportionate response. How do apologists defend this blatant act of injustice?
Twenty years ago, Thelma & Louise hit the theaters. The movies starts off as a "buddy movie" as Thelma (Geena Davis), a housewife, and Louise (Susan Sarandon), a single waitress, head out for a two-day fishing trip in a '66 Thunderbird. But on their way, troubles occur that send the ladies onto a path of violence and lawlessness, transforming it into a neo-western "outlaw" story. The film's plot is vigorous and dynamic as the protagonists turn from being helpless victims of a misogynistic society to empowered deciders of their own destiny.
I remember when the Friday night when it opened. My group of friends was deciding what we were going to see at the theaters that evening. I voted for Backdraft, an arson-based action thriller starring Kurt Russell. The other two males of the group voted for Hudson Hawk, a stupid action comedy starring Bruce Willis, an actor that I absolutely can't stand. The three women of our group kept a united vote for Thelma & Louise. And so the ladies won the night.
Expecting two hours of man-hating, I settled in for the movie. (Anyways, it couldn't be worse than Hudson Hawk, right?)
I am an avid reader. Although I prefer nonfiction, I do pick up a few fictional reads. Usually, they are escapist genre pieces, fun but of little aesthetic heft. In particular, I am a fan of Science Fiction novels. The main reason is that these novels can be read for mere thrills, but the better works provide something worthy of thought in addition to the engaging plot.
Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro is technically a SF novel, but I'd classify it a mainstream fiction. Here's my review:
"What's the rhubarb patch got to do with any of this?"
This is a story about sacrifice and acceptance told through the narrative of Kathy and developed through her interactions with her peers, Ruth and Tommy. The novel is divided into three parts: school days, coming of age, and destiny. The novel's premise is a standard of Science Fiction, but I will not explicitly discuss it because that would be a bit of a spoiler. Suffice it to say that the main characters are revealed as being "special" early on in the novel, although extremely sheltered from external society. As the novel progresses, the reason for their "specialness" and the predetermined sacrifice that it entails becomes clear.
We begin the story in the mid-1990s in England, Kathy is a "carer" for "special" patients. She comes from a privileged educational background, an elite institution called Hailsham. Some of her patients enjoy hearing tales about Hailsham and this leads her into reflections about her childhood school days. In these reflections we meet Ruth, her best friend, and Tommy, an emotional boy with whom Kathy shares a special rapport.
From this introductory point, we are presented with two stands of conflict/resolution. First, there is the personal challenge; the three main characters are engaged in a triangular relationship in which Kathy is the "odd man out". How is that to be resolved? Second, from their sheltered existence at Hailsham, the main characters slowly become aware of their purpose in life and the value that society places upon them as sentient beings. Having been presented with such a destiny, what actions can the main characters take to affirm their value and/or control their fate?
Structurally, the first section lays out the basic premise and evidence, both pro and con, for the resolutions of these conflicts. The second part tackles the person challenge of the triangular relationship. The third part deals with destiny and the existential challenge. There is certainly interplay between the three sections, especially in the ongoing dialectic of "value".
What is "rubbish" and what is "quality"? These are central themes underlying the conflicts. The answers to these questions determines the resolution. For instance, as school kids, they have "collections" of art and poetry that their peers at Hailsham created. However, upon leaving Hailsham, the external society may not hold high opinion of such "collections". So, in light of this new vantage point, does one see the "collection" as "rubbish" or "quality"?
"Memories, even your most precious ones, fade surprisingly quickly. But I don’t go along with that. The memories I value most, I don’t ever see them fading."
The prose is exquisite. The characters are accessible and feel authentic. The settings are rich and evocative, especially Hailsham. The plot is well structured and compelling, which is only apparent upon contemplation afterwards. On a cursory read this novel seems to fall into the "Literature without Plot" category, but that's mistaking "action" for "conflict and resolution". Kathy makes many significant choices throughout the novel, which have lasting ramifications on her destiny.
In conclusion, I recommend this book. The quality of the writing makes for an easy read, but the quality of the concept makes for a great deal of thought. If you're looking for a light read, then this isn't for you. If you're interested in thought-stimulating fiction, you've found a winner
Today is the Feast Day of Julian of Norwich, in the Anglican and Lutheran churches.
As I began my studies into Christian spirituality, Julian's Sixteen Revelations of Divine Love was one of the first overtly mystical works that I came across. On my first read, I was somewhat dismissive of it. First, it is an easy read with direct language, unadorned with philosophical nuance. By my training, this was a sign of inferior thinking. Honestly, if you can't manage a single quiddity, then what good are you?
Second, the universality of Love, the infallibility of Hope, and the root of sin being ignorance, these all mark Julian as a "proto-hippie" in my eyes. And "hippie-ness" is a BAD thing. Seriously, where was the scourge of pain to punish evil? Where was Wrath and Damnation? And what's this about God as Mother??? What is this, a classic of Western Spirituality or some New Age mumbo jumbo?
A few years later, I was studying the apophatic mysticism of the Cloud of Unknowing, another work of 14th century English spirituality. An article that I was reading made repeat comparisons between the Cloud and Julian. I thought "I don't remember Julian being anywhere as interesting as this writer makes her sound." So, I gave her a reread, something that I rarely do. (Life is too short to reread books.)
In the intervening years, I had transcended by biases in regards to theological technical lingo and "hippie-phobia". Therefore, I encountered Julian with an open mind. And she was well worth it. Her mystical vision is brave, unique, and beautiful.
The line that really caught me was "Sin is necessary, but all will be well", which sums up her belief that sin is not born out of evil, but of ignorance. This ignorance is natural and the process of sinning is how we learn. By making mistakes, we discover the right way to do things. Once this wisdom is obtained, we can move on into the perfection of God's Love.
That's an amazingly modern thought. Julian's forming this spiritual worldview in 1373, a time in which crazy superstition is rife throughout all aspects of society. Sin is the work of the DEVIL!!! There are demons and imps and monsters all over the place, tempting humanity into Eternal Damnation. And although God is "loving", he's more than ready to actively devastate the world with manifestations of his Wrath: the Black Death, famine and war.
Yeah, this is a time lost to ignorance and fear, but Julian sees an underlying reason for Hope. "Do not accuse yourself that your tribulation and your woe is all your fault. . . this life is penance, and he wants us to rejoice in the remedy." In other words, our pain is not a punishment for sin, but rather is the purgation of our sin. By the simple process of living our lives we are automatically engaged in penance. The everyday situations that face us brings us closer to perfection.
"And then you will truly see that all your life is profitable penance." That's a liberating spirituality.
I can go on and on about Julian, but I think that's something that can fill up many a post.
Born on May 3rd, 1896, Dodie Smith is best known for her novel, The Hundred and One Dalmatians, written in 1956. This novel has been adapted into a movie twice, an animated feature in 1961 and a live-action movie in 1996. In both cases, the movies were box office successes and spawned sequels. And a Broadway musical!!!
It's a children's story, so the plot isn't complex or overly coherent. However, the somewhat remedial story is saved by a truly memorable antagonist, Cruella de Vil. Asides from the fact that she wants to skin the puppies to make a fur coat, she's just a loathsome and aggressive character. She's so extreme in her villainy that she becomes iconic. Cruella defines the archetypal vain rich lady who needs to get whatever catches her fancy, ethical or not.
Another element to the Hundred and One Dalmatians is that it presages the whole anti-fur trend that came into prominence in the early '90s, most notably in the social campaigns of PETA and the Humane Society. In the history of animal welfare, this novel is published right at the beginning of the modern trend toward animal rights. It is therefore an interesting expression of this zeitgeist.
Wired has a disturbing article entitled Australia Pistachio Disaster Hints at Agricultural Breakdown. It's an interesting read about how the development of a crop monoculture opened up the entire production to devastating disease vulnerability. In this case, the fungal infestation of anthracnose wiped out over half of Australia's pistachio crop. Although fungicides are helping in containing the problem, it is only a matter of time until a resistant strain of anthracnose develops.
The risks of crop monoculture are well known. Even before the pistachio crisis, the big worry was in regards to wheat rusts, a similar fungal disease that threatens a vital grain staple. If a pistachio crop fails, that is a sad but limited economic crisis. If a wheat crop fails, that can result in widespread starvation.
Moreover, history provides dramatic examples of catastrophic crop failures resulting from monocultural farming. The Gros Michel banana was once the dominant cultivar in the world's banana supply, but a fungal infestation wiped it out. Its successor, the Cavendish, faces a similar threat.
I understand that the efficiencies of production are wildly increased by crop monocultures. But that's focusing on the short-term benefits. Yes, there is greater profit to be immediately gained, but at some point the crop will fail and somebody will be left with economic ruin. A polycultural system may be less efficient, but over the long term it will prove more enduring. So, isn't that the more ethical path?
96 years ago, John McCrae wrote the poem "In Flanders Fields." This poem has never rested easily with me. On one hand, it is obviously proper to honor the lives of the dead. But on the other hand, it seems foolish to pursue a course of action just so as to not "break faith" with those who have died in this cause. If the living do not take up the quarrel, it is an admission that those who have died have died in vain, for a bad cause. It is only natural to feel that this would dishonor their sacrifice.
But to continue sacrificing people to a bad cause dishonors and disrespects the living. And that is the priority. The Dead are beyond our ability to help. We can only remember them. The Living have potential in this world. This should not be squandered pursuing a foolish course of action.
I guess my feeling is that our ethical obligations are for the Future, not to the Past. Sad though it may be, the Dead are of the Past. There is no moral justification in risking the Future by keeping faith with the Past. There is no redemption in pursuing a failed cause.
Marcus Aurelius, born on this date in the year 121, is my favorite Roman Emperor, the last of the "Five Good Emperors." Additionally, he is one of my favorite moral philosophers. Whenever I read his Meditations, it amazes me to consider that this dutiful, humble, and authentic voice is of the Most Powerful Man in the World!!! Would I be so ethical and righteous if I had supreme wordly power? I seriously doubt it.
I don't think that I'd go all Nero or Caligula, but I wouldn't be writing Stoic reflections in my private journal. No, I'd be eating exquisite food, drinking fine wine, enjoying the cultural and intellectual richness of the Roman arts and letters, and relaxing with pleasurable company. I would hope that I'd have the ethical integrity to govern with wisdom and responsibility, but that would be secondary to having a good time.
I wouldn't be writing things like this in my private journal:
Everything that happens happens as it should, and if you observe carefully, you will find this to be so.
or
He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe.
Now, when you read such concepts in the works of Epictetus or Musonius Rufus, these are admirable ideas. But it's no surprise that people with such little worldly power would try to tame the chaotic pulls of ambition and desire. Finding contentment with a humble existence is a coping mechanism for the weak and disenfranchised. The Roman Emperor is neither weak nor disenfranchised!!!
And this is what makes Marcus Aurelius so admirable. The Stoic virtues are not mere coping devices for a life of hardship. They are relevant regardless of worldly status. Marcus Aurelius doesn't practice the Virtues because he needs to; he practices them because they are Right.
Here's a short vid about the life of Marcus Aurelius:
If you are interested in Moral Philosophy, definitely check out the Meditations, which is available free on-line at many locations including at the Internet Classics Archive or Project Gutenberg.
John Muir was born on April 21, 1838. He is the grandfather of the American environmentalist movement. His tireless efforts to preserve the unspoiled western wilderness, including Yosemite Valley and Sequoia, earned him the designation of "Father of the National Parks." He was a prolific Nature writer, influencing many generations of naturalist artists, including the photographer Ansel Adams. His political legacy is still active, most specifically in the organization which he founded, the Sierra Club.
In contemporary times, ecological matters are shamefully politicized. Expressing even the slightest enthusiasm for Nature and Her transcendent majesty gets one labelled a "crazy leftist moonbat" by the American Right. This is a sad situation. Nature is beautiful and should be preserved for future generations, rather than paved over, dug into, or polluted. Certainly, modern human technology and ingenuity can handle the challenge of meeting our needs while respecting our ecology.
In any case, take a moment to appreciate the natural world around you. Listen to the birds. Admire the trees and flowers. Be grateful for the food that grants you sustenance each day.
Here's a vid about Muir's meeting with Teddy Roosevelt:
