The Silence of the Writers

[daniel]

The Silence of the Writers

by John Pilger

*
For the great writers of the 20th century, art could not be separated from
politics. Today, there is a disturbing silence on the dark matters that
should command our attention.

In 1935, the first Congress of American Writers was held at the Carnegie
Hall in New York, followed by another two years later. By one account, 3,500
crammed into the auditorium and a thousand more were turned away. They were
electric events, with writers discussing how they could confront ominous
events in Abyssinia, China and Spain. Telegrams from Thomas Mann, C Day
Lewis, Upton Sinclair and Albert Einstein were read out, reflecting the fear
that great power was now rampant and that it had become impossible to
discuss art and literature without politics.

"A writer," Martha Gellhorn told the second congress, "must be a man of
action now... A man who has given a year of his life to steel strikes, or to
the unemployed, or to the problems of racial prejudice, has not lost or
wasted time. He is a man who has known where he belonged. If you should
survive such action, what you have to say about it afterwards is the truth,
is necessary and real, and it will last."

Her words echo across the silence today. That the menace of great and
violent power in our own times is apparently accepted by celebrated writers,
and by many of those who guard the gates of literary criticism, is
uncontroversial. Not for them the impossibility of writing and promoting
literature bereft of politics. Not for them the responsibility to speak out
- a responsibility felt by even the unpolitical Ernest Hemingway. Today,
realism is declared obsolete; an ironic hauteur is affected; false symbolism
is all. As for the readers, their political imagination is to be pacified,
not primed; after all, what do they care? Martin Amis expressed this well in
Visiting Mrs Nabokov: "The dominance of the self is not a flaw, it is an
evolutionary characteristic; it is just how things are."

So it is "evolution". We have evolved to the apolitical self; to the
introspection and squabbles of individuals divorced from any notion that
their self-obsession is less important and less interesting than an
engagement with how things really are for the rest of us. Some years ago,
the then budding literary critic D J Taylor wrote a rare piece called "When
the pen sleeps". He expanded this into a book, A Vain Conceit, in which he
wondered why the English novel so often degenerated into "drawing room
twitter" and why the urgent issues of the day were shunned by writers,
unlike their counterparts in, say, Latin America who felt an obligation to
take up the political essence in all our lives and which shapes our lives.
Where, he asked, were the George Orwells, the Upton Sinclairs, the John
Steinbecks? (Taylor recently seemed to be repudiating this; let's hope he
has recovered his nerve.)

The main literature prize shortlists bear out his original thesis. Yet
according to Claire Armistead, literary editor of the Guardian, "writers are
challenging any sort of parochialism". But what else do they challenge? She
describes "a real generic inventiveness" in the three non-fiction
nominations of the Guardian Book Award. One is about a neurologist who plays
with words in a "totally eccentric" way; another is about mountains; another
is about the former East Germany which, she says, "makes you understand a
little better what a funny old world we live in".

But where are the contemporary works that go to the heart of this funny old
world, as the books of Steinbeck and Joseph Heller did? Where is the
equivalent of Eduardo Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America, Jonathan Coe's
What a Carve-Up! and Timothy Mo's The Redundancy of Courage? There are, of
course, honorable exceptions. You can buy James Kelman's collection And the
Judges Said... in W H Smith, which proves that books that rescue true
politics from the Westminster media village's "bantering inconsequence" (to
borrow from F Scott Fitzgerald) are wanted very much by the public.

Indeed, there are countless books by little-known authors, produced by
ever-struggling publishers such as Pluto and Zed, which illuminate,
sometimes brilliantly, the shadows of rapacious power and which are ignored
in the so-called mainstream. No doubt, they are deemed "political"; and
unless politics can be diminished to its stereotypes and, better still,
turned into a TV drama, no thank you. After all, as one critic who dominates
the reviews of paperback non-fiction, wrote: the suggestion that social
democracy is threatened by the insane march of George Bush and his attendant
McCarthyism is, well, "silly". No matter that when you fly to the United
States you lose the basic civil liberty of your privacy; that your name
alone can lead to body searches, as Edward Said frequently experienced; that
the FBI now routinely inspects the reading lists of public libraries.

These are dangerous times, and surreal. Column after column is devoted to
the Martin Amis cult: he who describes politics as having "withered away in
this country, and that's a great tribute to its highly evolved character",
and who sneers at the great anti-capitalist and anti-war demonstrations as
"really [about] anti-politics; they're protesting about politics itself".

While the Guardian rejoices in the new-found humanity of the former US
secretary of state Madeleine Albright as she promotes her autobiography,
Madam Secretary, there is not a single reference to the fact that this same
woman, when asked if the deaths of 500,000 children in Iraq as a result of
American-driven sanctions were a price worth paying, replied: "We think the
price is worth it." The headline over her smiling face read: "I loved what I
did."

"When truth is replaced by silence," the Soviet dissident Yevgeny
Yevtushenko said, "the silence is a lie." No writers' congress today worries
about the lies and crimes of George Bush and Tony Blair. It is gratifying
that the playwright David Hare has broken his silence ("America provides the
firepower; we provide the bullshit") and joined the courageous dissident
Harold Pinter. There is an urgency now. A Downing Street document,
circulated among "progressive" European governments, wants a world order in
which western powers have the authority to attack any other sovereign
country. In six years, Blair has sent British troops to take part in five
conflicts, and he wants yet more bloodletting. The document echoes his views
on "rights and responsibilities" - to kill and devastate people in faraway
places, thereby endangering and diminishing all of us.

What would George Orwell make of this? There is a series of Orwell events
planned to mark the centenary of his birth. Most of those participating are
politically safe or accredited liberal warriors. What if Orwell had turned
Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four into parables about thought control in
relatively free societies, in which he identified the disciplined minds of
the corporate state and the invisible boundaries of liberal control and the
latest fashions in emperor's clothes? Would they still celebrate him?

"They won't say..." wrote Bertolt Brecht in "In Dark Times", "... when the
great wars were being prepared for... they won''t say: the times were dark.
Rather: why were their poets silent?"

This article first appeared in the New Statesman - www.newstatesman.com (http://www.newstatesman.com)

Copyright 2003 Carlton Interactive/John Pilger

[Halfglass]

Hey Daniel: I dunno. We've got rap artists, who are poets, and they reflect what's happening rather straight-in-the-face. Perhaps with the web, books of controversy aren't as needed, in the sense that "underground" thinking is untamed and alive and well on the net. Ever go to Totse.com? (Of course I like books! And we do have authors like you bro.)

[ November 15, 2003, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[gone]

Another excellent article from John Pilger. He seems to be one of the few around who says it like it is.

Did you American folk get his documentary ‘Breaking the Silence’ about Iraq a couple of months ago? There was nothing there that would surprise, simply his putting the questions that matter to the people that matter resulting in lots of embarrassed silence. At the end as the credits role some US Defense guy takes his mic off in disgust after the interview and says something like, ‘Jeez, I bet you voted labour didn’t you.’ ‘Ah, actually yes,’ says John. ‘I bet you’re a communist as well right?’ ‘I am yes,’ John should have added, ‘you say it like it’s a bad thing.’

Apropos writers, I think this harks back slightly to the commercial/creative element that surfaced in the Timberlake Terror thread. The state of the publishing industry means that to get any type of foothold you generally have to write some accessible and undemanding trash. If you want to write anything of value as an emerging writer in 2003 you will probably have to publish it for free on the internet. This *does* have value, though not in the ‘would be nice to make a living’ way that many folk hold dear.

Much of what sells is remarkable. There’s a lot of Emperors New Clothes out there. Dust jackets carry wild praise for what’s inside. But then A N Wilson said in an article in the Evening Standard last year that he often pours praise on books in his reviews that he’s never read and that he knows for a fact many others do as well. Of course, if you’re on a deadline a positive review is easier than a critical one.

But it’s not appropriate to think that writers should somehow be responsible for directing readers in the right direction. It’s a little like the change in the method of political policy making. Fifty years ago, say, there was a habit of telling the voting public what they needed in policy, the makers of which assumed they knew what was best for the rest of us. These days, the method is to purify policy in focus groups so that it reflects what the masses want – presumably, with value and use taken out of the equation. In this way many writers just give the reading public what they seem to want – the slush and the drivel. I can report the unfortunate truth that I get more emails to do with the commercial nonsense I have written than the (what I consider to be) thoughtful articles.

As recently as 10 years ago it was possible to say everything was connected to politics. Not so now. From style to magazines to literary journals, cricket, music and macro-economics, many believe that politics is an insular institution that doesn’t matter to them. This is both unfortunate and untrue.

While the emerging writer may be forgiven for pandering to the market as part of the establishment process the Amis types among us have the luxury (probably duty) to speak up.

[ November 15, 2003, 07:14 AM: Message edited by: gelfer ]

[daniel]

The limiting of consciousness to a narrow apolitical consensus seems to have occurred in a dialectical process. Writers and artists make choices based on what they can get into the mainstream and sell (those that won't "dumb down" or depoliticize their work lose their place in the system), and their sense of their own work changes based on the rewards they receive, so they make further adjustments. Over time, they do not realize how utterly they have abandoned any meaningful statements in order to embody the values of the system.

Amis seems unable to imagine that "The dominance of the self" has to be a nihilistic dead end. But Leftist values and Marxism do not function anymore either. It is only by turning to the reality of the spirit that we can find a way out of the post-modern hall of mirrors, yet few are willing to make the shift at this point. Most prefer to cling to irony and po-mo desolation rather than embrace a new attitude toward the natural, the supernatural, and the Sacred. The necessary new stance is not yet represented in the mainstream, in any form. How can it reveal itself?

[Rob P]

Hi Daniel- I agree with this line of thought..
the ideas missing from the mainstream-
the natural, the supernatural and the Sacred.
As a songwriter, I find it frustrating to think
that I 'should' write about things that people
will want to hear, when what I really want is to write
about things that I personally find interesting- but
then the publishers, record labels, etc..
don't have a clue what to do with it, so I
may as well have only done it for myself in the first place!
Of course we all write for ourselves first and foremost, but
if you want to expand your audience you have
to find them, and they have to find you.
I struggle with this everytime I start
a new piece of music, and part of me wants to write
only instrumental music because the words get in the way
so often.... Do you wanna write some lyrics?
I am not sure what the purpose of new music
is at this time of our history.
Oh hey sorry to bring this around to music
when it began with writers, but we are all
writers in some way or another- we all have
a responsiblilty to speak the truth- our truth,
whatever may come from it...
seeya
Rob

[Halfglass]

Rob: Yeah I play and write music. As I said somewhere on this site, all the good licks have been grabbed up. This can't happen with writing obviously, because of the crisis the world is in presently affords endless topics. What you were saying Daniel, about the natural, and supernatural (how will these be revealed) I get the sense that these things will, or must manifest themselves at the peak of the crisis itself. What a show we're all in for. (That something is eminent in the form of collapse of systems, or a more radical evolutionary leap, I am certain.)

[jezebelle]

"new attitude toward the natural, the supernatural, and the Sacred"

Believe you me, the change is happening, we could never talk this way to anyone, back not so long ago. This discussion forum is a miracle. Which is why Castanada was so popular, unless you were an intellectual (and knew of other sources) many read him. He was our channel marker as the mass of us went down the river. Such is Daniel now, our new Tom Wolf, as I see him.
But I think there is a polarization process, that is seperating the cream from the milk. It becomes so innane that everybody starts to notice.
God I can't even watch the news, the tone of the media is so annoying.
I know we could make a fortune if we owned a news station and reported the natural, the supernatural, and the sacred, people are hungry for it.
As the "Cosmic Trigger" suggests the battle is not just here, but in unseen realities, we are breaking the grid of controlled information!

[Charlie]

Jezebelle,

I really hope you're right about change happening, but I don't see it in mainstream thinking yet--I just see John Ashcroft, an increase in environmental rape, religious intolerance, and death squads. Sorry to be so negative. You're probably taking a longer view than I am here.

It's hard to tell if we're thinking or practicing in a vaccuum--ie, I'm interested in Shamanism and entheogenic news items, so I find them; therefore I can imagine that a big movement is afoot. But is there one? And speaking of the mainstream, wouldn't it profane the sacred, the way Gelfer points out?

[daniel]

Charlie,

I believe there is a positive change happening. The only way to experience this is on the level of one's own consciousness and the people around you. Abstract thoughts of the "mass" are of no help or use - and throw you back into the defeated paradigm of the system's current "irrational rationality."

Light casts a shadow. From our present position, the shadow is much more visible than the light. But that seems like it could be a natural part of the process. Bush, Ashcroft, etc., represent the American psyche at the end of a certain line - totally primitive and fearful, completely refusing to confront the psyche or one's own responsibility for the Earth. Their caricatured parade is leading more people to recognize what needs to be accomplished - on the level of the individual psyche, first of all, this is the necessary integration of the shadow rather than its projection into the physical realm.

What gathers force in a few individuals can then explode across continents or across the whole planet. The Beats had this effect. In 1956, they were giving readings for their small group of friends. Just a few years later, they had spawned the hippies, Bob Dylan, Lenny Bruce, and the vast 1960s counterculture. Given the right circumstances, the internet - a synaptically self-organizing planet mind - could accelerate consciousness transformation to an exponential level.

All that is missing now is a recognition of the realities of our current situation, and the possibility of accelerated global transformation.

[Em]

Respect, all,

This seems as good a place as any to explore a few (hopefully) pertinent thoughts...

Halfglass is surely right that there aren't too many "licks" left in music, and perhaps many other areas of life. As my fave band sang "...meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."; and elsewhere "...and everything I know is what I need to know, everything I do's been done before, every sentence in my head, someone else has said; at each end of my life is an open door."

I may be very wrong in thinking that this planet has seen it all before, and that the same forces which were at work at the beginning of life on earth are still dominant. This to me means that the whole of earthly creation is configured in a way which favours chaos and strife, with the forces of "darkness" in continuing ascendancy. In fact this place is a bear-pit. One can easily see why the Gnostics think that the Earth and all on it are the work of a degenerate God, kicked out of the "normal" godly boardroom.

The problem is knowing what to do for the best. My view is that too many of the "new agers" are thoroughly misguided in their take on the 'light' and the 'dark' side - yet its quite simple to see what's what. If you are viscerally against war and violence, and you unreservedly condemn these horrors, that's fine! but it doesn't get you anywhere. Fact is, these things happen here. Condemning it doesn't make it go away - so what do you do? If you and your child and family are faced with imminent annihilation, who would you rather have with you - a well-meaning hare-krishna; or someone who has to a greater or lesser extent brought their 'dark' and 'light' sides into balance, and is therefore capable of judiciously using both? (as in "do unto them before they do unto you"!!!).

As for the lack of writers, Halfglass is right about the net, the poets, rap, etc. But what is really lacking is a multitude of BALANCED WARRIORS to take on the unbalanced forces of 'darkness'. You can write 'til the cows come home, but only when you wield the power that these types understand and respect, is when you get results. Unfortunately, throughout the ages, the unbalanced ones have always had the upper hand. Why should it change now? And how?
Maybe the Legions of Light in other realities (I really hope so, Jez) will do the work for us, and Cosmic Heroes will triumphantly usher in a new age beauty and peace. But if they somehow oversleep and miss the harmonic concordance, precession of the equinoxes, and 2012, do we, individually and collectively, have a Plan 'B'?

I hate to disagree with Daniel, and indeed any of you, as I know that you all mean well. But again I think that Daniel misjudges the ones in power, especially in the US. They may be, cosmically-speaking, stupid - but they're not that dumb. They aren't necessarily motivated by fear; more like a quest and liking for power, for what it can do for them. They are intelligent and dedicated enough to fight for that power, seize it, and use it. They know that they have enemies, and are constantly taking steps to neutralise them. They will bend when they feel it expedient - but they will hang on 'til the bitter end. The enormous advantage they have is that they are hungry for power, they know how to get it, and will do whatever it takes to attain it. They are 'focused', and they are unscrupulous.

Meantime, the 'good' guys are...well, writing songs, books, rapping, feeling angry, betrayed...
and I truly don't mean to 'diss' them, as they often make life worth living... its just that we lack the ones who know that you can only fight fire with fire...

To integrate BOTH (no, not the book) the shadow and light must be our goal - and in that we need all the good fortune we can get.

Here's to our luck...

[Proteus]

Em writes:
"The problem is knowing what to do for the best. My view is that too many of the "new agers" are thoroughly misguided in their take on the 'light' and the 'dark' side - yet its quite simple to see what's what. If you are viscerally against war and violence, and you unreservedly condemn these horrors, that's fine! but it doesn't get you anywhere. Fact is, these things happen here. Condemning it doesn't make it go away - so what do you do? If you and your child and family are faced with imminent annihilation, who would you rather have with you - a well-meaning hare-krishna; or someone who has to a greater or lesser extent brought their 'dark' and 'light' sides into balance, and is therefore capable of judiciously using both? (as in "do unto them before they do unto you"!!!)"

Gee, Em, I don’t know. Do your really think that getting "Dark" is going to change the world for the better? Does the world really need more ruthless and callous people—even if their initial intention is to bring about peace? Isn’t this exactly the publicly expressed rationale for the war in Iraq & every revolution "of the people" that’s ended in despotism, endless civil war, and/or soul-killing repression? We’ve got to get them before they get us, then we can live peacefully and securely! And look where we are. A world full of rage, weapons, and desperate people who are itching to settle old scores. Isn’t the use of violence to achieve political and ideological ends the main reason that we’re teetering on the brink of global collapse? How can we use the tactics and weapons of the enemy without becoming the very thing we hate?

Em also says:
"As for the lack of writers, Halfglass is right about the net, the poets, rap, etc. But what is really lacking is a multitude of BALANCED WARRIORS to take on the unbalanced forces of 'darkness'. You can write 'til the cows come home, but only when you wield the power that these types understand and respect, is when you get results. Unfortunately, throughout the ages, the unbalanced ones have always had the upper hand. Why should it change now? And how?"

While I’ve had some of the same thoughts myself—and certainly sympathize with your position—I just don’t think our current situation is as simple—or as hopeless—as well-meaning but ineffectual "new-agers" versus the "powerful" who fear nothing but armed force. And how can you sell the power of words short when it is words that have given power and legitimacy to the current world order? Constitutions, Charters, slogans, sound bites, position papers, media images, and the very vocabulary through which we discuss our lives create our strange but powerful sense that we "need" rulers and lawmakers to make us behave civilly to one another. Words in these many forms construct our view of reality in such a way that we think that there’s a cruel THEM out there and an impotent US here at their mercy. Guess I’m incurably optimistic, but I think Shelley was right when he said that "poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world." He wasn’t referring merely to versifiers but to "artists" with vision whose well-expressed ideas shape belief and create expectation. Living under a government even more oppressive than the current British and American governments, Shelley also wrote (in The Mask of Anarchy) that "we are many and they are few." Half the wealth (and therefore half the power) of world is concentrated in the hands of a few hundred; there are nearly 7 billion people in the world. I’m pretty sure we can take them—& save our souls in the process if we engage in civil disobedience and principled non-cooperation to bring down the house. The powerful—even those with guns—ultimately derive their legitimacy from the will of the people. We need but to rouse that will to serve (without violence) a higher purpose than making money and multiplying creature comforts. A combination of powerful words and creative ideas for steering our way clear of the self-perpetual cycle of violence, victimage, and revenge is by far our best shot of changing the world for the better. Repeating the mistakes of the past will certainly finish us off.

[Em]

Hi Proteus,

Right on cue, you've responded with a typically visceral, but thoroughly misguided reply to what you THOUGHT I'd written. smile.gif

Nowhere do I advocate that people should be "dark", "ruthless and callous". And I have to say that it is rather sloppy thinking, governed by an emotional response, when you ask

"Does the world really need more ruthless and callous people - even if their initial intention is to bring about peace?"

Certainly the world doesn't need ANY such people, never mind more. But such people, by definition, aren't in the business of bringing peace.

What I am saying is that you need to be CAPABLE of FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE. That inevitably means having the knowledge and the will to use the "dark" side. I set out a simple scenario as to when you might be glad of your ability to " do unto them before they do unto you". This is a personal stand, but one which I suspect even you would embrace, given the 'right' circumstances. Quite simply what I'm saying is that sometimes, unless you are willing to be annihilated, together with your loved ones, you have to take "dark" action. Maybe I'm peculiar, but faced with imminent death, or torture, etc., I would rather have the power to prevent that, even if it means the torturers' deaths, rather that dash off a quick poem, or perhaps a morally-powerful pamphlet, as a way out.

But you have to understand, and this is absolutely crucial, that what I'm advocating involves the actions of a BALANCED WARRIOR (and, sadly, I'm not one - though I have a good theoretical grasp! smile.gif ). As someone whose goal is freedom, I would NEVER seek to harm anyone else - unless they made it impossible for me to pursue my peaceful path.

You make that wonderful, idealistic and optimistic case that the "good" will eventually prevail, through their sheer goodness, and having the 'moral right' on their side. I think you somewhat undermine your wishful thinking by pointing out that the 'bastards', of which there are a few hundred, enjoy half the world's wealth and power - and are determinedly pushing for more! My point is that, seemingly, it has ever been so - therefore, why should things change now? This is not to say they won't, but, to me, the question is still - HOW?

Words are indeed powerful, but they only express the feelings and intent behind them. Far more significant is what people DO. There are few seekers of power who hadn't couched their quests in language of reason - look at your own unbalanced coterie of leaders. Forever on their lips is the cry "Freedom". But what they really mean is that they're fighting for the freedom to do as they please. If you don't like it, there's always Guantanamo, or something similar. The slight irony in the mess of Iraq is that a bigger and harder bastard took out a smaller one - usually they leave each other alone, or offer support. This was actually probably a morally right thing to do, but it took a "dark" force to do it - Iraq's writers, poets, musicians, etc. having long ago gone very firmly underground - and not in a nice way.

Further, you say that "if we engage in civil disobedience and principled non-co-operation" then we will bring the house down. Well, to me, disobedience means going against the wishes of someone who already has power over me. So how will they react to that challenge to THEIR WILL? History, ancient and modern, is littered with examples of the kind of response you might get. The overall score is still - a few hundred bastards control half the world's wealth and power. The only way to deal with these people is through EQUALITY. Or, there has to be a BALANCE OF POWER. Otherwise, you will have to be "disobedient", with all that implies.

By the way, do you think that if the Democrats win the next election (like they did the last one, but not enough poets took up their cause), they will redistribute the wealth and power so that everyone is equal? Or will it be more of the same, except perhaps just a bit less so?

I guess there is something in that 'fight or flight' syndrome. When faced with unpalatable circumstances, I guess we have to either fight, or run away, possibly to live to fight another day. The trick is in knowing which fights to pick, i.e. the ones you are most likely to win, and of course choosing the right strategy. Confronting Goliath with a sling may work once, but then you just may piss off his family, who'll come looking for you - probably with a David-seeking neutron missile.

There is another way. If faced with an overwhelming enemy, your best bet may be to do what the Buddha did, and don Juan advocated - work on yourself, so that you bypass the shitheads of the world, and the universal energies behind their manifestation. For it is those energies that are the true culprits, and until you transmute them, idiots will always be abroad this planet (and probably many others).

As long as we live in a universe of polarities, the pendulum will swing between the extremes, meaning that we will have shifts between the "good" and the "bad". For the vast majority of BEINGS (not just egocentric people) it means being caught up in the workings of the particular world set-up, at a particular moment in time. Again, as the Buddha has shown, to get out of that system, and transcend it, is a huge task, requiring profound changes in our consciousness. This is an enormous undertaking on an individual level - how much more so on a planetary one. Perhaps our best hope does lies with the 'Universal Legions of the Light' galloping to our rescue by neutralising the dark forces.

By the way, do you think hamburgers would be quite as popular if the cows had weapons, and were prepared to use them?

Lack of meaningful power very naturally engenders wishful thinking (with various groups of people even believing that they've got god on their side, as an antidote to their powerlessnes; or as a justification for their domination). The problem with it is that it also creates muddled thinking, which by its nature precludes coming up with a solution. There is nothing wrong with having hope - it keeps us going. But if we are so befuddled by our rampant emotional responses to a situation, our 'solutions' will solve nothing - and probably make matters worse.

Proteus, I'd infinitely prefer to share this Earth with you, and your like, than with the Bushinistas/Saddamistas/takeyourpickistas. Its just that I'd rather you were a bit more, well, you know, BALANCED. smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

[Proteus]

Hey Em: Sorry if i seem to be a bad actor responding on cue to a poorly written (i.e. emotionally overwrought) script.

But i assure you that i've completely understood your position--i just happen to think that it suffers from a fatal flaw in logic. It also fails to describe reality in other than dualistic terms (i.e. good vs. evil/light vs. darkness)--a fact that i think distorts an accurate assessment of what constitutes "balance" and a "pragmatic" approach to dealing a crisis that we all seem to agree is looming a short distance down the road.

Your most recent post repeatedly cites the Buddha & it's from the perspective of a practicing Buddhist that i say that it's impossible to fight fire with fire without also torching the "good" things that we value in the process. Part of the 8-fold path to which i have pledged myself includes doing no intentional harm to other beings, my stated position is logically consistent with that pledge. My critique of your position is that it appears logically inconsistent: that is, you appear to argue that using deadly force (if need be) is the most effective means of improving a world that is, under threat of deadly force (if need be), being marched over the cliff. As anyone can observe, violence begets violence. The modality for casting off one's fetters that you suggest is superior to "mere" writing and good intentions is exactly the same modality that currently enforces the rule of the powerful. And that's what always happens when an armed uprising succeeds; the strongest among the formally oppressed continue using force to coerce even their former supporters into giving up some of their freedom & material substance in order to establish their own power base. We either have to break this cycle or we can get ready for a Blade Runner future--there isn't a third option that will work in the long-term.

About the dualism suggested by your post: i'm saying forget about such over-simplifying abstractions such as "good" and "evil" or "light" and "darkness." They are only categories for events defined in terms of our own perceived interests. While i'm sure that some of the Bushinistas are quite consciously aware that their policies are environmentally destructive, reliant upon violence, and repressive, they are nevertheless logical and reasonable from their own points of view. They feel a deep need to establish order, to create jobs & economic prosperity, etc. because they believe that a contented electorate not only keeps them in power but needs someone behind the scenes to authorize the almost-unthinkable to preserve peace and order for the many. Most of those in power aren't "evil" in some absolute sense (i'll grant you Osama and Saddam seem absolutely evil); they act out of fear, ignorance, and greed no more and no less than the rest of us so-called "good" people. They fear scarcity, change, and the blame that "the people" will lay at their doorstep should it happen that the planet cannot support American-style consumption and material comfort into perpetuity. Quite rightly, they judge that telling people that we're in serious trouble and that we must make immediate and painful sacrifices--right now--to prevent unparalleled misery will cost them support (and therefore power). So, they use the armies at their disposal to deprive another country of its oil to keep the appearence of ongoing prosperity alive for a little longer. They imprision those that threaten peace and security because they not only fear sudden death while going to their offices like the rest of us, they know that they will lose power if the people become too fearful and panicky. Given the rules of the Power Game, their actions are completely ratoinal. The biggest difference between "Them power-mad oppressors" and "Us good, decent folk" is that when they act out of ignorance, anger, and greed, their actions and deluded choices can be implemented through armies, courts, and police. We just lay that shit on our families, friends, and co-workers.

When you see the world in terms of good & evil, us & them, it's easy to hate "those" people. After all, they lie; they rape the earth; they are selfish; they are capable of violence when their interests are threatened. Of course all of the above is true of us so-called "good" people. Moreover, we are completely implicated in the very system we'd blame for our current predicament. The fact that we're all communicating on computers suggests volumes about the degree to which we are completely at home in our resource-plundering, consumer culture. We're burning electricity and fossil fuels at rates scarcely different from our somnabulent neighbors. Most of us are buying food (indirectly) from agri-business interests that genetically modify our food supply, poison our water with fertilizers and pesticides, and are turning some of the most fertile land on earth into Nitrate wastes. Most of us have and probably will again strike back when attacked rather than turning the other cheek. Most of us get even (and will again) when defrauded or cheated, even calling upon the very sytem of laws, enforcement, and jurisprudence that otherwise enslave us.

In short, we "good but powerless folk" are also the system; we are complicit--through our purchases, through our love of comfort and entertainment, and through our silence--in eco-devastation and the political-commercial enterprise that props up ruthless dictators and destroys indigenous populations for a few million barrels of oil. So what THEM are we to fight when it's all of US that inescapably own a share of the blame?

i'm also saying that we are--also inescapably--what we do. If we kill, we are killers; if we cheat, we are cheaters; if we steal, we are theives (of course not in any permanent, absolute sense). My position arises from that principle--and NOT from some unthinking wish that we all just try to get along. i'll readily acknowledge that nothing will change current conditions without our taking action and making some tough choices and not without our being very tough-minded and creative. But my point previously--and reasserted with force here--is that changing hearts and minds through the written word and through intense and personal spiritual work is not weakness, incapacity, or avoidance of "hard-nosed" responses to "evil." Quite the contrary, all the major cultural movments of recorded history were ignited by powerful arguments, framed in beautiful words and sustained by a tough-minded commitment to gaining spiritual and intellectual maturity. And, damn right, it's going to take sacrifice now & even a willingness in the future to go as far as enduring torture and death at the hands of the deluded, the panicked, and those desperately clinging to the smoldering wreck of what used to be their kingdoms.

If you understood me to say earlier that transforming the world was a matter of writing a couple of rap songs and a few letters to one's elected officials, let me clarify myself now. i believe we are in a life and death struggle for nothing less than the fate of human world--quite possibly the planet as well. Those who see the crash looming on the horizon do not have sufficient access to the institutions of power that prop up the existing regime to "get the message out"--and even when they attempt to use these channels, the message is corrupted and diluted by those institutions. We are not well-organized, unsure of what (if any) positions and principles unite us, and aren't clear on how to proceed. The only rational near-term move we can make is to accept that the crash is inevitable and get our own houses in order. Right now, it isn't about getting our message out on CNN, but about getting our own heads on straight & informing and enlightening (to the extent possible) our circles of intimate acquaintances. If Legions of Light come along to save us, hallelujah! But i think we were wiser to plan for the very worst and be open to all possible (yet nonviolent) ways of extricating ourselves from the mess we've all helped to make.

What's my big plan for changing the world? What would i do were i the Commander-in-Chief of the Peace Army we're going to need in order to transform the world and put violence, coersion, and eco-destruction behind us? What would i require them to do in order to be ready for the inevitable collapse of the current system? i'd require the "troops" to do an hour of meditation a day, a minimum of five days a week. Ditto yoga, tai chi, qui gong--or any other practice that puts you into touch with the lifeforce that flows through all things while strengthening mind and body. They'd also be required, at least once as a kind of baptism into the Peace Army, to experiene the Otherworld through ayahuasca, salvia, or mushrooms. i'd command them--as a short-term strategy aimed largely at generating awareness and support--to register to vote, lobby elected officials, organize and attend protests and rallies. They'd have standing orders to volunteer, do community service, engage in anonymous acts of charity, and get involved in whatever land reclamation projects are possible in their commumities. i'd order the pooling of resources for the buying of burnt-out industrial buildings as incubators for clean, sustainable businesses and meeting places for every esoteric (even--gasp!--New Age) practice imaginable. i'd enjoin the troops to make it a rule that communities could never grow larger that 1000 members, so when the time comes we can avoid the insanity of nation-states and extra-regional governments from ever taking hold of us again. The peace army would learn to grow their own food, build or make anything it needs from the detritus of our failing consumer culture, and take a life-long course in peaceful problem-solving that would draw on the teachings and examples of the Buddha, Jesus, Ghandi--but also negotiators who settle disputes between lenders and creditors, divorcing couples, unions and management, etc. In short, we'd develop deep personal spirituality, complete self-reliance, and an enormous palatte of non-violent options for dealing with conflict. And that's just what i'd suggest between now & 2012--or whenever our appetites finally precipitate the Crash.

And when those in power and the lemmings finally use up enough oil to precipitate the global economic disaster that will work to get everyone's full, undivided attention, the seeds of a new, more civil society will already have been planted and nurtured in our "underground" nursery. Or we could go the anarchy route: every man & woman for himself, the survival of the fittest.

i just thought we ought to try something new.

[gone]

Proteus, that sounds like a reasonable manifesto. I’m glad you composed this – I took my son to play group this morning and was thinking about what kind of reply this needed, but you’ve saved me the bother.

Em, fight smile.gif with smile.gif for only smile.gif can truly know smile.gif

Talking in parallel context, another man said, ‘We will match your capacity to inflict suffering with our capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we will not obey your evil laws. We will soon wear you down by pure capacity to suffer.’

[Em]

Hi guys,

Phew, the limitations of the limited written response (mine, at least). Where to start?

OK.

Proteus,

my posting was in response to another post, which had a very worldly context - that's why I MOSTLY spoke in terms of good and evil. Personally, I'm pretty convinced that one has to rise above both, or be crippled by them. I most certainly don't see The Existence as being all about 'good' and 'evil' - Life, the Universe, and Everything is much too sophisticated for that.

Nevertheless, we most of us live in this world, and are subject to its vagaries. In THAT context, I believe that we have to try and live and behave strategically. Even though you've come out with a lot of sloganeering (and good stuff it was too - but fatally flawed from my perspective - literally!), I notice that you haven't actually said what you'd do if you found yourself in a life and death situation, which I briefly described in two posts. Methinks you're avoiding the issue. Unless you answered it by saying that you've pledged yourself to never intentionally harming another being? So you'd sit there and watch your loved ones being tortured, etc., knowing that by using force you could stop it? Wow. And then when they dragged out members of your community...you'd still watch and - meditate? Because you believe that its wrong to stop a total , utter shithead?

Its difficult for me to speak authoritatively on Buddha's behalf - I wasn't there with him, and a lot of meaning tends to get lost in translation! But I do think that what the Buddha was trying to say is that we have to try and see through the 'maya' - not an illusion, but rather that the true nature of things was always hidden from us, thus giving us the 'illusion' of seeing things as they really are. His prescriptions, very much like Jesus's, were aimed at individuals. If everyone followed his teaching, all well and marvellous. Same with Jesus. Sadly, as we know, not everyone does follow his teachings. So what do you do then?
You can most certainly turn the other cheek and suffer. But why, if you don't have to? Why is it more acceptable, and 'right' that when someone inflicts violence upon you, you don't defend yourself? Are they better than you? More deserving of consideration?

I really don't want to be critical, but your grasp of political realities, and human psychology, as outlined in your assessment of American politicians and their motivations, is frankly naive. The more I read of your post, the more I see your desperation for things to be different. You obviously mean well, but you simply can't seem to understand that sometimes there is only one way to stop some people. And you don't have to hate them...

I can't recall the exact words, but this is what you're dealing with:

Commisar: "If we suppress the Catholic Church, the Pope will not like it...".
Stalin: "And how many divisions does the Pope command?".

You see, these 'evil' people know that life, and you and me, are expendable. They are the farmers of people. We are there to be used; exploited; profitted from. Death is the natural order of things in life - as indeed it is in this universe. These people take their cue from mother nature - there is nothing sentimental about that particular mommy. It is we, the farmed, who want to change the order of things - naturally enough. But you won't do it through a vast peace corps!

You also seem to implicate me in being responsible for the current world order. Well, I can reliably inform you that it wasn't me. Absolutely no-one consulted me about how things should be. Not god, not devil, bin Laden, Blair, Bush.. well, you get the picture. One day I just found myself in the middle of this asylum, and had to get about trying to understand the rest of the inmates. Soon I was getting a kicking from one faction for doing something they disapproved of; and then the others joined in when I broke their rules. Nursing a sore head, I decided to become invisible for a while, and try to make some sense of the whole mess. I'm still trying...but I will not accept responsibility without power to discharge it; or, to put it another way, I will NOT enter into agreements that I had no hand in framing.

I don't want to keep repeating myself, so if you want to re-read my posts, you'll find that my take on things is rather broader and more balanced than you seem to think. I know its very easy to latch onto fragments when they appear to represent something you feel very strongly about - they do catch the eye - but they are still only fragments, and don't tell the whole story.

In the final analysis, I want to get beyond the 'good' and 'evil', at all times recognising the kind of world I live in. And whilst I never want to offer gratuitous violence to anyone, I ALWAYS AND ABSOLUTELY reserve the right to protect myself and those close to me, by whatever means are appropriate.

So, you see, we'd get along just fine - unless you insisted that MY community couldn't have a 1001 members... smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif

Gelfer,

You'd make a great Catholic, what with all this suffering you're into. smile.gif

Personally, I think that suffering is vastly overrated, and should be undertaken only under the most unavoidable of circumstances. But each to his own...

By the way, what happened to the guy threatening his 'misguided bretheren' with endless suffering?
smile.gif

Both of you are very fine people, and I truly wish you and yours well in life, and that you never have to deal with some of the scenarios I mentioned.

Peace and harmony,

Em

[gone]

Em says, ‘Gelfer, You'd make a great Catholic, what with all this suffering you're into.’

Hey, you make that sound like a bad thing! I’ll have you know I used to be an alter boy, serving at a convent of the one and only true faith. Anyhow, as you are aware, we’re more into guilt than suffering, the focus of other traditions.

I see what you’re saying, and often agree when feeling weak, but I firmly believe in the naivety that violence begets violence. Instead of the balance that you rightly suggest we attain, by matching fire with fire we achieve something more akin to a spiralling vortex. Passivity certainly leads us towards a dead end, but there are many proactive ways to achieve the balance which elevate us to new heights rather than lowering us to old depths.

[Proteus]

Em writes: I notice that you haven't actually said what you'd do if you found yourself in a life and death situation, which I briefly described in two posts. Methinks you're avoiding the issue. Unless you answered it by saying that you've pledged yourself to never intentionally harming another being? So you'd sit there and watch your loved ones being tortured, etc., knowing that by using force you could stop it? Wow. And then when they dragged out members of your community...you'd still watch and - meditate? Because you believe that its wrong to stop a total , utter shithead? Talking in hypotheticals like this is always perilous. What would i do if i or my son or wife were threatened with death? The only honest answer is that i don't know & that it would depend. My supposition is that my life in the potential dreadful future you describe would be contiguous with my life as i've actually been living it up to that point. Therefore, i'd respond then as i respond now in circumstance considerably less dramatic and horrendous. i'd look for a peaceful alternative because i have pledged to do no intentional harm to another being. After that--who knows?

But how likely is it, in such a situation, that i or anyone would just happen to have the freedom, the weapon (or some other means), and the instant nerve to bring matters to a violent end, thus saving my wife and child and thus deserving their grateful tears as our attacker lay dead at our feet? Works in Hollywood, but since we're trying not to be naive about things here, i'd say that the far more likely thing is that armed & trained minions of those in power would follow basic procedure take us in the early dawn as we sleep--or arrest us in a public place and do their evil after we'd been "secured." We'd do what most people do when violent and evil people set their hatred against them: we'd die.

But, let me say again, being unwilling to use violence to prevent violence doesn't leave you without options. Of course i wouldn't "just meditate" if anyone (even those who i know to be habitually violent) were in danger; i'd act, using the means at my disposal in that moment to relieve suffering, preserve safety, and cultivate harmony. Perhaps i'd bend my principles a bit and smack one person with a stick to preserve another's life; perhaps i'd create a diversion so the threatened person could escape; perhaps appealing to the attacker's basic humanity and/or reason would work. Who knows? My commitment isn't to knowing everything i'd do in every hypothetical situation, but to act on my principles in each moment and to take each moment just-as-it-is.

Come to think of it, a lot of nice Japanese Zennies hopped into Kamikaze planes or served with distinction in Tojo's armed forces because they powers-that-were threatened their families' lives. They also pledged to do no intentional harm. So, anything is possible, i guess. Zen's emphasis is on remaining free of clinging--a thorough-going spiritual practice that would have us ready to let go even of our attachments to wonderful ideals, oft-repeated forms and vows, our loved ones, and our very flesh. Somewhere in all all this nonattachment is freedom to act wisely and compassionately as causes and conditions suggest are appropriate to each moment.

Well, enough about what-ifs. For the moment, we work the levers that we have at our disposal against threats that are not-so-immediate as the scenario you describe. We'll wait and see what's needed and what tools we have available between now & 2012 & from then on.

[Em]

Hi Gelfer,

So, you're into guilt, ha? Well then, you must be a good Hebrew - either way, suffering is involved; unless you've invented a new variant, 'suffering-free guilt'! (which would rather defeat the object, but you are in New Zealand, and everything there is turned on its head...). smile.gif

And an ex-altar-boy in a convent, to boot. There must be a smutty book in that, at least - or maybe you have video footage? If you ever seriously weaken, that could be your passport to some easy cash. smile.gif

On a serious-ish note, both you and Proteus have softened your initial stance on 'violence'. I can only urge you to give your "weak" side a better hearing, for it is telling you things to your ultimate spiritual advantage.

So as not to repeat myself, what I say to Proteus, below, goes for both of you. smile.gif

Greetings, Proteus,

Your last post shows that you've been doing some heavy thinking, and beginning to see things from a different perspective - which is to be congratulated. And if I sound like a smug, patronising bastard, please be assured that's the farthest thing from my mind. I've wrestled with my conscience and morality too, and in the end tried to follow what seems a logical and balanced approach to Life. I know that you have, too.

Let's see if we can look at this business of violence from a few different standpoints.

For instance, is violence a 'balanced' act(ivity)?

If we decide that it isn't, and belongs to an extreme, say right wing, then what is its equal and opposite?

I'd say that it is an acceptance of the acts of violation, exemplified by actions rendered ineffectual by adherence to false notions of 'morality'.

This would then be on the left wing of the Balance.

It then follows that both are extreme positions, and unworthy of a 'balanced' person.

Ah, but you say, you can't equate violence with non-violence, for the latter is inherently superior to the former.

Er..why? You can SAY it for as long as you like, but actions do speak louder than words, and if you effectively do nothing which will stop the perpetrators in their tracks, they'll merely continue their idiocy, confident and convinced that THEIRS is the right way, as they are clearly able to do what they want - so they MUST be right. To their mind, if you can't or won't defend yourself, then you deserve everything you get - you are an inferior sub-species.

But also, how can you say that YOU have respect for yourself and any significant others, if you don't do your UTMOST to protect yourself? And if someone else treats YOUR life as expendable, why do you insist that THEIRS is sacred?

So I would put it to you that a casual disregard for life is the same as the obsessive respect for life - they are merely different faces of the same coin.

A BALANCED approach to me means that one understands the 'realities' of this Earth, and that one has integrated both the polarities of our universe. At that stage, YOU are the master of both sides, rather than being their slave (as pretty well all of us are). Being immune to their passions, YOU decide which side to use, as appropriate. Of course, should you ever get that far in your development, you'll be beyond petty human considerations, but the way to reach that exalted position is to understand the underpinnning principles. That means that you clearly see that responding to one extreme with another one is inherently flawed.

Amongst all this is a crucial matter of 'sacredness' of Life. What I say will be doubtless controversial, but what the hell...we are all grown-ups!?!

Underpinning pacifist thought is the 'truth' that all life is 'sacred' - which may well be true in the sense that it emanates from God (however you define that can of worms). Beyond that, it is held that life is precious, and mustn't be taken - under any circumstances. (And Proteus, you are well on your way to accepting that under at least some circumstances, you just might do the right thing - and kill!) smile.gif .

To me, this is the expression of a very natural and understandable feeling of wonder and respect for such a miracle as sentience.


Yet there are at least several actualities which challenge this world-view:

Death and destruction are programmed into everything - from us as people, to the Sun and stars, and the whole of the material universe. The astronomers have informed us that, as we speak, entire galaxies have collided, with almost unimaginable consequences. Look around you, and everywhere you'll see Death's total disregard for Life;

We humans, and virtually all sentient, normally-percievable planetary beings are in the process of eating, or being eaten, or just plain killed. Remember "nature, red in tooth and claw".

Grim, ha?

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because to me Life SHOULD be precious, and not subject to arbitrary ending, because it is such an incredible wonder. Yet all around me I see wilful and seemingly perverse acts of destruction.

But 'no', because I have to believe that actually Life is truly neverending, because it can be found everywhere and in everything, and Death merely transmutes it - it continues in another form. So Death brings to us a transformation, for sure - it is only a matter of time.

On that basis, given that everything is born to die, is it really so 'unimaginable' that a shithead's life could be 'transmuted' in defence of oneself, and those that you care for?

And just a quick word in favour of that old perennial, being responsible for one's actions. If you subscribe to that, then anyone who sets out to do harm to another surely has to bear responsibility for whatever happens to them as a result of their actions - including being killed?

I think we can all agree that the best way forward is through respect, consideration and co-operation...

...and I hope that we can accept...

... that we have the right to PROTECT ourselves by whatever means are appropriate.

Here's to our mutual peace, happiness and enlightenment.

[Proteus]

Em: You've put a lot of words in my mouth and made a lot of presumptions about the "underpinnings" of my actions and beliefs. i don't recognize them in the outlandish garb you've dressed them in.

Just for the non-existent record, you misread me entirely if you think i've said anything other than i don't know what i'd do because in the not-knowing is freedom to act wisely and nonviolently. i'm CLEAR about what my intentions are toward all beings.

Go ahead, stop me in my tracks.

[Em]

Proteus,

Seems to me that a major problem with communicating is that the subject-matter under discussion is always open to misinterpretation.

At least the topic got a bit of an airing, and I haven't really got anything more to say on the subject at this point. We will both take from it what we want, at least partly convinced that we've upheld our end of the argument. In the final analysis the only thing that matters is how we actually live our lives, and what we do when the time comes.

As for stopping you in your tracks - that's not my job (though the Dirty Harry-esque invitation to do so is certainly very tempting - but I'm trying to give up violence, even of the verbal/written kind smile.gif ). Life has pretty much a monopoly of that, and no doubt you'll be hearing from it, like we all do. If our exchanges have any value at all, you'll be a bit better prepared when the call comes. smile.gif

[kris ifans]

My internet access is extremely limited at this momemnt in time, so apologies if i repeat anything already said folks...

I recomend, with reservations, the work of former British poet laureate Ted Hughes. His personal life may beg some questions, but his artistic conduct is largely exemplary.

Try "River," "Cave birds," "Crow," (all poetry) and "Shakespeare and the Goddess of Complete Being," and "Winter Pollen," ( both prose.) Winter Pollen contains valuable thought, in the context of this thread, on Leonard Baskin, S.T.Coleridge, and T.S.Eliot. His essays on poetic metre and shamanism are also well worth reading IMHO. Further, his book of poems examining his relationship with Sylvia Plath, "Birthday Letters," has produced some profound Qabbalistic interpretations from Ann Skea: http//www.zeta.org.au/~annskea/BLCabela.htm

On this point of political climate and writers, and regarding our concern here with altered states of conciousness, i often wonder what D.H.Lawrence would write, were he alive today...

If you consider yourself a writer, (or poet, perhaps more to my point...) then it's my opinion that the challenge is to lead an exmplary life....

(this statement raises questions, i realise, but for now its perhaps enough to say that i believe the attitude of Rimbaud is perenially useful, in this respect and,of course, that William Blake is the godfather...)

Again, sorry i've jumped in here, and hopefully i'll have the time and opportunity in future to make a more considered contribution to this excellent forum.

Kris

[daniel]

Hi kris,

Thanks for your comments on Ted Hughes, etc. The idea that it is necessary for an artist to lead "an exemplary life" is a very recent one. It is not something we expected of artists in the past, and Hughes himself seems to have failed in that department.

However it may be the case, now, that you can no longer be a bad "life artist" and a good artist.

[David Orange]

i wholeheartedly agree with kris and daniel's suggestions that artists should embrace the responsibility of leading exemplary lives. i feel that the tendency to romanticize the lives of those who produce wonderful art, yet who introduce misery into the lives of their intimates, must come to an end. the myth that great art only comes out of a life of great dissipation, self-destruction, and contempt for or neglect of those around you is just that, a myth. the path of destruction left in the lives of those surrounding so many artists of the past is damning and disturbing.

[Agent Smith]

yes, and who has been hyping, promoting, and manifesting into reality that myth? screw art, I'm gonna myth!

[kris ifans]

I think that all artists worth bothering with are those that have made the necessary descent into destruction, but have returned with their vision transformed.

There is so much junk around today, and most of it is an unconcious and understandable rejection of "the call" to responsibility..

Great art is healing art. We return to it as if to a tried and tested medicine. The poets we read again and again are those who have returned with the goods.

Some who fit the shamanic archetype:
Blake, Coleridge, Eliot, Keats, Dante, Garcia Lorca, Rilke, Shakespeare, Popa, Yeats and Hughes too, eventually was justified in writing:

"So we found the end of our journey.

So we stood, alive in the river of light
Among the creatures of light, creatures of light."

Hopefully, as our times spiral ever faster out of control, more will write what they have to write, not to get published, but to return to the surface, transformed, and complete the journey.

kris

[ January 09, 2004, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: kris ifans ]