Timberlake Terror

[gone]

I must be getting a little out of touch. Last night I found myself watching the MTV 2003 Movie Awards. Everyone knows how mad this kind of thing is but last night it felt like a full-on dimensional shift. It reminded me in some way of Daniel’s DPT experiences – a super smooth sinister occult interface. There were strange animations, glittering lights and language loaded with significance beyond my points of reference. I knew it was dark, but wanted to be part of it.

50 Cents’ worth:

My flow, my show brought me the doe
That bought me all my fancy things
My crib, my cars, my pools, my jewels…

Faustian shudder.

I did turn it off before it finished, honestly.

[sire_012]

gad.

i made mention in another thread of Metzner's essay concerning westerner's penchant to turn every sacred plant we interact with from a chance at divinity into a trodding of profane and profanable idiocy, and ultimately addiction (caffeine, cocaine, tobacco, etc). it seems along with these plant allies we should group music as yet another substance, or catalyst, that we have bled dry of all meaning and systematically dry humped into idiocy, making it another dumb troll for consumption. whenever i see britney spears i can't help but think of Linda Fox, the diva-in-a-can of PKDick's "Divine Invasion".

so what is it about western civilization that systematically hunts and kills beauty in the name of the dollar? its almost as if we are one breif step from understanding that we live in a void apparition, but out of fear of that implied meaninglessness - or at least Godlessness - of a world without dieties we've created money to hunt and swoon and swarm for. we would spend our lives tearing up every rose bush if someone told us there was a "life supply" of money under one, somewhere....

[gone]

Indeed.

I’ve been thinking about PK Dick lately too, particularly his reference to ‘kipple’ – the bitty junk which accumulates, probably to eventually take over the world. When I read ‘Do Androids Dream…’ I interpreted kipple in a kind of benign way – it was gathering because of the lack of intervention from others. Now I’m thinking kipple may be more malevolent and proactive. Also, I think it may work on more fronts than simple bits of junk and dust, but also ‘thought kipple’, ‘culture kipple’ and so forth. I think the MTV Movie Awards may be part of this malevolent kipplization. We need to be kipple vacuum cleaners, but I worry that if we suck too much of it to stop it from gathering we may get clogged. Perhaps kipple ‘channelers’ is more appropriate. But if kipple, like energy, cannot be eradicated, but only transferred, where would it go? Kippledom, no doubt, but then we’ve come full-circle.

[sire_012]

gelfer:
We need to be kipple vacuum cleaners, but I worry that if we suck too much of it to stop it from gathering we may get clogged. Perhaps kipple ‘channelers’ is more appropriate. But if kipple, like energy, cannot be eradicated, but only transferred, where would it go? earth! tongue.gif

maybe earth is the asshole of the universe or multiverse or ???. perhaps earth - and more than that the 3 dimensional realm - always acted as an exhaust system for other dimensions and its our task at hand to attract the crap from other planes and let it manifest in bad taste, bad music, etc.

perhaps somewhere along the line it became alluring or trendy for non-formulated conscious beings to 'slum it' on earth, or try out what being an 'other' in the plane of seperation was like. while we were playing in the gutters we got so enamored with the pleasures and joys of being physical beings that we either got addicted to it, or simply got lost within this belief system, habituated in it, and forgot that we weren't these bodies in this world, just passing through. but our forgetting this and ultimately actuallizing more trite crap is actually serving the function of keeping some other part of it spic and span.

i wonder how justin timberlake would feel to find out he was some kind of multi-dimensional janitor manifesting as the sum all of the universes' shit in a ruby studded coat.

heh heh. good times!

[Rob P]

I get (do you ever get?) that overwhelming, sick-to-my-stomach feeling when I walk into a record store and realize that it all looks like shit, and it probably sounds like shit, or at least it sounds like something good that actually
moved people 30 years ago or maybe 20 years ago,
or maybe even 5 years ago-
and now it's a commercial or a cel-phone ring
on some kids phone- and that's as far as it goes-

and it really doesn't matter anyways...
except that I'm a musician and now I look at it all and wonder why do I bother?

And I will still buy something new just to give it a try,
and after one or two times listening through it, it is officially lost
in the iTunes Library...maybe to be played again
someday.....maybe not.

And that's me- a musician. What about the people
who have TV and DVD and cel-phone and palm pilots
and PlayStation and every other distraction available??

And now we are learning to justify downloading
music for free, as if it the music has always existed and as if it didn't cost anything to produce and as if the
artist and songwriter aren't trying to actually
make a bit of money to create some more....
I read an article where this kid says that stealing
music is like smoking when you know
cigarettes are bad for you....Uh- no-
If you walked into a store and STOLE the
pack of cigarettes, then you have a valid comparison...

Maybe we have enough music now for the
tailspin we are currently in- all you need really
is Mahler and the Beatles, and a few things
in between!

The psychedelic experience has reinforced
the Buddhist notions I have been trying to learn
in terms of letting go and impermanence, and when I
combine that with all the political bullshit and
cultural roadkill being sold as pop music
I am not sure where to go!!!

Oh well hey this is my rant- music
is my life- a big part of my life-
and I'm looking for a way to keep it in
my life as the world turns and burns
and keeps getting ever more beautiful inside!
seeya
Rob

[gone]

I used to be heavily into buying new music, but not anymore. I think I’ve bought about 2 CDs in the past year, only one of which was something new (Royksopp’s Melody AM).

The making a living aspect of music is interesting. I feel the same tension as a writer. I think I would have made more money *delivering* the newspapers and magazines I’ve written for in the long-run. It seems that the creative process is becoming something of a vocation which needs to be undertaken alongside some other form of ‘real’ employment. I know quite a few people with books and CDs available through Amazon with an impressive Google-return (the ONLY measure of fame ;) ) who still remain piss-poor.

While this is a whinge, there is an important point here. If we’re not careful the only people who will spend serious time developing their talents will be the independently wealthy and the salaciously popular.

But looking at the one or two people I know who are *significantly* famous there is a noticeable down-turn in the quality of their talents. Perhaps the vocational path is better in the end.

[daniel]

Chogyam Trungpa told a friend of mine that the root of inspiration is inspire, or breath. Inspiration is something natural to us, like breathing. Absolutely no reason to stifle it, but no reason to get too attached to the product either.

[marilyn]

It's the age-old pursuit of creative types to be able to make a living by doing what they love to do: to create - whatever the art form. And it's a continual condundrum that hasn't become any easier than it was 100 years ago for writers, musicians, composers, or artists. For some, the pursuit is about money and fame; but, for (I think) the majority of artists, it's more about not being burdened by the lack of time and resources that it takes to pursue their art. Taking away this 'burden' of vocational work, then, theoritically, artistic efforts are allowed to flourish unfettered.

I have many close friends who are musicians, writers, and artists. These folks' creations are incredible and I, as a supporter of these arts, am so appreciative that I get to hear, see, and experience their works. And all of these folks have to work at another job to pay the bills. That is a big reason why I love to support their works by buying their works whether it's a cd, a live show, a painting, a book - whatever.

I don't think it will ever come to down to the "haves" making it creatively or the "have-nots" not making it because they are tied to making a living through a different vocation. What is the point of these creative endeavors: to have fame and make the ca-ching-ching or because creativity is an innate component of being human and is something that cannot be denied?

Although I'm not going to articulate this very well here, I believe this issue is tied in with the religion of materialism that suppresses our society. If we lived in a different paradigm in which money was not essential to our survival, who knows what incredible works of creativity we'd all bring forth into the world?

And what's really up with the cult of celebrity anyway? Does fame validate the artist? There's a great Les Blank documentary called "The Maestro" about this amazing and incredible artist - the Maestro. The Maestro says "Picasso painting is more important the a Picasso painting." I love that because it speaks a truth of creating art. And while I'm at - with the loose quoting of others here ;) , Joni Mitchell makes a comment on the live album 'Miles of Aisles' when the audience is calling out for 'The Circle Game'. She tries to point out that it's somewhat ridiculous to request the artist to perform a work on demand. "No one asked Van Gogh 'Hey, paint a "Starry Night", man!' He painted it and that was it." I guess my point here is that it is the process of creating art that is important - ultimately and not necessarily the final outcome.

Now that I've digressed completely, I'll wrap it up.

Cheers.

[Buzz]

Marilyn,

I have loads of 3D stuff I'd like to sell you. Yuk, yuk!

But seriously folks, as a visiting artist and one who appreciates other forms of art I know wherefrom though art coming. It kills me to see some half-ass talent like Brittany Spears selling records while Eric Johnson worries if a crowd will even show up for his performance.

Most of the fame crowd in the visual arts are academics, art administrators, and gallery owners. Most of them are real assholes. But the working artists (the ones living on their art) that I know (in most cases) are swell people.

[David Orange]

i like this thread, especially gelfer and sire's back-and-forth at the beginning. nice.

it's hard to feel guilty about 'stealing' music off of the internet when the big record companies have been ripping people off for so long-- charging $17 or what have you for a cd that costs pennies to manufacture. the same companies generally treat their own artists like crap, as well. & these corporations are often part of huge conglomerates who also peddle high-tech weaponry and other unsavory things. i don't want my money going to support that, if i can help it. it's bad enough that i pay federal taxes which support things which i find to be criminal. that being said, i would feel guilty about stealing music from artists on independent labels.

i think the bottom line, at any rate, is that if you're bent on making art of any kind, then you're going to find a way to do it, regardless of the obstacles, financial or otherwise. if you have to work a 'day job', then so be it. many people who achieve great financial success through their art end up producing crap, because they completely lose touch with the life of the everyman, and they lose their "hunger" which drove them to create in the first place.

i'm not saying that it's fair, and surely there are better models for honoring artists and enabling them to keep a roof over their heads and ensuring that they have ample time to create...but it's worth mentioning that artists are not the only underappreciated folks in society-- teachers, janitors, garbagemen...the list goes on and on-- are all grossly undercompensated, in my opinion. it seems that, in many cases compensation is in inverse proportion to the actual service that one provides for society as well as the difficulty of one's job.

with all due respect to joni mitchell, i think the van gogh analogy she used in responding to the audience member's request really falls flat. songs are things which are presumably written to be performed repeatedly, whereas, since a painting is permanently affixed to a canvas, and not an etch-a-sketch toy, it is by nature a unique, one-time thing. if 'the circle game' were a completely free-form composition, and the audience member said "hey, play 'the circle game' exactly the way you did back on july 9, 1975" then she would have somewhat of a point, i guess...of course it would be absurd to request a painter to re-do a painting on demand, but i don't think it's at all outrageous to ask someone to play a particular song. i understand her irritation at being asked to play the same stuff ad naseaum, but her objection was voiced really lamely.

[Woodpecker]

Hm, I think Joni had a point. A true musician is not a jukebox. If she doesn't feel that song, she shouldn't play it. Similarly, Allen Ginsberg marveled at people telling him he should write another poem like "Howl." And since we have some writers on the board, here's a line from Susan Sontag's introduction to the classic Mexican novel "Pedro Paramo," by Juan Rulfo. "Everyone asked Rulfo why he did not publish another book, as if the point of a writer's life is to go on writing and publishing. In fact, the point of a writer's life is to produce a great book--a book which will last--and this is what Rulfo did."

To do otherwise--or for Joni to have played "Circle Game"--would be to produce kipple, if I understand the term correctly.

Now, on to the MTV movie awards, which I had the good fortune to miss again this year. I think a lot of the empty junk that "we" ("our" society) fills itself up with serves a fairly important purpose. Probably many important purposes.

It helps close the void of meaninglessness. It gets people through the day. It allows people to glide superficially over the frightening profundities of existence. Because some of that spiritual stuff is frightening. Some people feel it's better left alone.

I had a good friend in college who was, or who seemed, really unspiritual. And non-artistic; he's a scientist today. And he always seemed to be on an even emotional keel: no great ups or downs. I was asking him about that one day and he said his older brother had been schizophrenic and had died really tragically.

So these kinds of mass dreams that we engage in, like pop music, commerce, and the MTV movie awards, provide us a temporary safe refuge from (in Walter Benjamin's words) "that most terrible drug, which we take in solitude: ourselves."

Beyond that, I don't believe anyone's been able to kill beauty or anything like that. Sell it, maybe. But there are pop songs going around that are as good as anything that friends of mine create. Yesterday I was shopping for a pair of Nikes and this song came on the radio:

Ka-Ching

by Shania Twain

We live in a greedy little world
that teaches every little boy and girl
To earn as much as they can possibly
then turn around and
Spend it foolishly
We've created us a credit card mess
We spend the money we don't possess
Our religion is to go and blow it all
So it's shoppin' every Sunday at the mall

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

[chorus:]
Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
It's such a beautiful thing - Ka-ching!
Lots of diamond rings
The happiness it brings
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things

When you're broke go and get a loan
Take out another mortgage on your home
Consolidate so you can afford
To go and spend some more when
you get bored

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

[repeat chorus]

Let's swing
Dig deeper in your pocket
Oh, yeah, ha
Come on I know you've got it
Dig deeper in your wallet
Oh

All we ever want is more
A lot more than we had before
So take me to the nearest store

[repeat chorus]

Can you hear it ring
It makes you wanna sing
You'll live like a king
With lots of money and things
Ka-ching!

To me, she's verbalizing the ambivalence we all feel about money, and the tune is excellent, and her voice is excellent. Next, Eminem's song Real Slim Shady came on. As I see it, the guy is a really, really good vocalist-poet (like my friend Gerhard). I won't paste the lyrics here, but here's a link for the strong-of-stomach: http://www.purelyrics.com/index.php?lyrics=rmvthmpv. Anyway, in the Delka shoe store on Mariahilfer Strasse in Vienna yesterday (two blocks from one of AH's old apartments, but I had forgotten about that just then), after a grueling week of work, on a chilly, sunny day, I rested my aching legs in a plastic chair and experienced a few quiet moments of peace.

We may have come a long way from our roots as hunter-gatherers, but that's not only a bad thing. Recently I've been reading and translating into English a couple of articles a writer I know wrote about a current situation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. It really feels like another version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or of the "ethnic cleansing" of the former Yugoslavia. The event I'm referring to was a massacre of 26 Indians by nine Indians from another tribe on last May 26. I'll paste some of what I've translated so far here in case anyone's curious to read them. They are not polished.

The author, Miguel Angel Cabodevilla, is a Capuchin priest who lived in the Ecuadorian Amazon for 13 years. He had a friend and colleague, Alejandro Labaca, who was speared to death in '87 by Tagaeris, discussed below (but that's a long story in itself). He also organized the creation of "El bebedor de yage," the autobiography of the last Secoya shaman-chief, Cesario's brother-in-law Fernando.

Take care; and may you find beauty where you least expect it.

Wpkr

Wartime

Miguel Angel Cabodevilla

Huao prelude

It will be hard for outsiders to understand what's written here about the most recent large-scale Huaorani attack. But perhaps if we introduce it with some of their own words, recorded by Lino Tagliani in his years on the Aguarico (1988-92) from various Huaorani, almost all of them still living, the reader might be able to draw nearer, intellectually and emotionally, to this group which has been hunters, gatherers, and warriors.

"How could we live without making attacks?
Why should we let our spears get blunt without sticking them in someone?"
Nemunga (died in 1991, Cacataro)

"Grabbing our spears
We walk out and go to war.
Let's go kill!
Our spears are long, sharp and precise.
They always hit their mark!"
War song

"You can't always be at peace, nor can you always be at war. War and peace are like sun and rain, or like the seasons. We get some of everything. Wartime and peacetime are part of our life and of the nature that surrounds us. The river, too, rises and falls; sometimes the forest is full of food, sometimes we go hungry...."
Babe (Tiguino)

"My spears open wounds,
My spears drench the earth with blood!
During the attack, the sky was dark,
Covered with low, black clouds.
In that moment many enemies got sad,
But I, Huaorani warrior,
I was happy!"
Huepe (Cononaco)

"When the Huaorani stop making spears, and put up our hands, and walk around unarmed; when our war songs fall silent, and we make no more raids, then we Huaorani will be condemned to disappear."
Nemunga

Code of honor with deviations (?variantes)

Those who promoted or participated directly in the attack are adults, very close to the traditional mentality expressed in the quotations above, which, of course, should be taken apart and studied in great detail, though this isn't the place to study them. People like Dabo, Babe, Yeti, etcetera, know the cowode (non-Huaorani) and their complex social regulations only in a very superficial and inappropriate manner. They are, and they feel, Huaorani; they barely know anything about the norms of outsiders. Desde luego nada (?) as far as internal things are concerned, such as the management of their territory, the order within their house. That's what this was about.

Above all it had to do with a piece of territory they considered theirs, and of their ability to pass freely and peacefully through it. A dangerous and uneasy proximity had been developing. While their Tagaeri relatives had been up until recently problematic tenants, now successive reports seemed to confirm the addition, replacing them, of others who were much less trustworthy, because they were more foreign and fearsome. "They are eating the fruits of the chonta palms our ancestors planted, and walking over their bones," one of the attackers said angrily. Because of this, the first commandmant of a Huao group came into play: no-one enters our land without an adequate invitation. Breaking this commandment is punished by death. Even if, as some has suggested, the attackers were motivated by outside interests such as woodcutters, the primary reason still stands: it's our land and we do what we please within it.

Add to that the sacred law of vengeance. When the Tagaeri killed Carlos Omene in 1993, they killed him while he and the other Babeiri were on what they considered a "civilizing mission." There were several things wrong with the Tagaeris' attack. According to their understanding, the Babeiri were on a peaceful mission. They were returning Omatuki to her home; men, women and children were all walking together. It wasn't a party made up for war, nor even for hunting or vigilence. That's why the attack was treacherous. And thence sprang the fury after the spearing and, shortly thereafter, the death of Carlos. "My spears have got to have a Tagaeri! And if I die, I die!" Babe used to scream in those days, despite the fact that he hadn't participated in the previous mission, and despite the fact that he was too old to take part in epic raids against enemies considered much stronger, faster, and tougher.

It's appropriate to ask, why was there this educative zeal in a person like Babe? Was it spontaneous or induced? (...) "If we get Babe and his people in 'Nueva Golondrina' to make new contact with the Tagaeri before we begin work on the lines that you have indicated on the map, the general security of our workers and technicians will be guaranteed..." wrote the Ecuadorian foreman Jorge Viteri to D. Robert, the director of the CGG (Compagne Generale de Geophysique, a French petroleum company), on 11/9/89.

Who was in control then, or who is in control now, if anyone is making this kind of attempt? Nobody. The deep jungle is the place of no-law, of impunity; much is lacking to institute democratic control there. The civil authorities, police, military, and indigenous people, are notable for their absence in that region. An oil company foreman can intend, as can be seen in this case (of which we have written documents), with the compliance of his bosses and on the basis of a few gifts, to change the signo (?) of indigenous relations in a particular area, in the same way as the later control of the territory (?). No-one and nothing seems to impede it. Could someone do it now, in the same way--a timber company, or a tour operator, or anyone else who happened to be so inclined, even a simple adventurer? It seems evident that the answer is yes. For this reason, the possibility that there was some outside influence in the May '03 attack should not be discarded. Those are only some of the dangerous deviations that could be putting pressure on, or using to their own advantage, the old Huao code of honor.

Nevertheless, I insist that with the data obtained up to this point, and while proof is still lacking, this assault seems to have been driven principally by feelings arising from their own values (or lack of values, depending on how outsiders see it).

"Carlos's widow spends all night crying for her speared husband. Nobody has avenged his killing. And she hadn't got a man by her side!" That's what they said in Tigüino, not so much as an excuse as an argument. Those complants are like salt in a wound of vengeance without scarring.

(...)

Commentaries on a Huaorani Attack
Miguel Angel Cabodevilla

End of May, 2003: a near-fatal blow has just been aimed at an ancient human clan. Ecuador has assisted, (...), in what could be the prelude to the immediate extermination of a group that lives free in the rainforest. By chance I happened to be present, in some way, in that unhappy moment and, because it's a serious matter, which has me especially concerned, I would like to offer my views on the circumstances and the events, insofar as it's been permitted me to learn them. I'm confident that, together with the views of others who were affected, either indigenous people or not, they can help to find a solution that is more appropriate than apathy, unpreparedness in the face of future attacks, or the final sacrifice of an ancient human group.

To my understanding, what we're talking about here is a collective failure. The quality of a society is judged by its ability to protect its weakest members. Obviously in this case we haven't been effective in doing that.

The initial rumor

The first rumor I heard, which should not be confused with a piece of news, was communicated to me by Milagros Aguirre, journalist for El Comercio, as soon as I arrived in Quito after two years of absence from Ecuador. Briefly, it went like this: ONHAE (Organizacion de Nacionalidades Huaoranis de la Amazonia Ecuatoriana?) reports that some Huaoranis have attacked Tagaeris; it's believed that they have killed up to 30 people near the Curaray River; the warriors brought back with them the head of one of their enemies; ONHAE claims that the attack was inspired and even organized by the woodcutters who operate in the sector of the Tigüino River.

"Does that sound like it could be true?" Milagros asked me.

"We should find out right away," I said. "There's probably a big difference between that report and whatever might have happened."

I phoned the Capuchin mission in Coca and learned that we had a preliminary answer. This, now, was news. Two of the Huaorani aggressors had slept at the mission, recently arrived from their raid. They had brought with them weapons robbed in the attack and, obviously, a lot of information. They were eager to talk. Juan Carlos Andueza, whom they had gone to see, was recording their stories in Coca. Later he did the same in their own community of Tigüino, while they still had the tension of warriors who had arrived from a crusade of extermination.

He photographed the looted objects (a blowgun, spears, hammocks, etc.) and sent them to Quito where we were trying to coordinate the flow of information.

At that point we had sufficient indices to establish hypotheses about what had happened, and advance certain certainties.

Actively collecting information, the mission had more credible data than anyone else in the country. Nevertheless it did not feel it appropriate to make an official pronouncement at that early stage. And at that point, events swept by it.

Between morbid fascination, disinterest, and news

In the press, from the very beginning, business won out over information. The Guayaquil tabloid El Extra sent its peculiar reporter to Coca, who quickly joined up with a local one sharing his temperament. The result (after some payments to Huaorani from the Babeiri group) was a human head on page one, giant headlines, little proven data, and no comprehension whatsoever of the scope of the underlying problem. The press coverage, from the beginning, oscillated between a sensationalist, blood-and-guts tabloid approach and an ineffable complacency toward the alleged attackers, who were publically and victoriously paraded through the city of Guayaquil only days later. Were these supposed to be heroes? Or perhaps ignorant, picturesque savages, fully ready, after the alleged massacre, to walk naked on the beaches and in the festivals of the great port city? Now that they got famous killing ten or twenty people, why shouldn't we take them on a little tour? What better image, national and international, could we possibly project of the recently-formed jungle province of Orellana?

But no one seemed surprised by this operation. The indigenous organizations reacted lightly and late; and as for the government, no official authority, beginning with those from Orellana, spoke out against the grotesque farce.

The so-called serious press, the radio and TV stations, barely reacted at all. Late and briefly, two newspapers each (?) sent someone to the vicinity of the event. It cannot be said that that event, a massacre in the true sense of the word, was investigated with even a minimum of rigor. El Universo, a Guayaquil newspaper, made a somewhat more detailed followup. In the next few days I had occasion to reject several interviews. The supposed professionals wanted to take the information we had gathered--information supported by verification and reflection--and set it up against all kinds of lies and fabrications that lacked any basis in proof, saying that they wanted to present the public with "different opinions," or with the absurd pretension that "everyone has the right to express their opinion." How can you work with people who make no distinction between opinion, untruth, gossip, and plain foolishness?

...

I had the opportunity to converse in those days with journalists from various branches of the media; they were generally friendly, but they had so little previous knowledge of the subject that I felt like I discussing science fiction with them; discussing with them a country so strange and remote that it might have been located in outer space.

The discourses of the directors of the indigenous organizations

People who read the Ecuadorian newspapers, watched Ecuadorian TV, or listened to Ecuadorian radio in the days after the massacre should judge for themselves if the various indigenous organizations really knew what had happened.

Who among them went to the site of the massacre? Which of them interviewed the warriors, and when? It must be a closely-guarded secret, because it never came out. Among the leaders of the indigenous organizations there seems to have been a script which they all stuck to without major deviations, responding to concrete questions with declarations of principles and diverting the discourse away from any detail of what happened.

They said it was an action organized, financed and directed by woodcutters, despite the fact that its executors made proclamations time and time again to the contrary. They never confronted this obvious contradiction. They portrayed their companions as puppets in the hands of criminals, and never supported any of their allegations. Some repeated their eternal charge that the oil companies were responsible. No proof of this was provided, nor of the illogical declarations that pistols were found at the site of the massacre. Rarely has the distance between the directorship and its bases been so obvious. Likewise the irreconcilable differences between their politically-motivated utterances and the crude realism of the cultural actions of their people.

Perhaps the peak of this misguided argumentation was the pretension that nobody else should get involved in the affaris of Indians. As if in a parody of some absolutist regime, some of them defined what should and shouldn't be thought, what is allowed to be asked, what opinions one is allowed to have. An unsustainable pretension from any point of view.

My impression was that they were not only disinformed, but also disinterested, at least the leaders at the national level. Days after the event, at a press conference, they still didn't have a single concrete piece of information. Instead, they tiresomely repeated the political discourse that seemed appropriate to them. Listening to them, anyone could understand that they were much more interested in the fall of the current Minister of Energy than in the survival of the remaining uncontacted Indians. They didn't even once refer to the fate of the uncontacted Indians. Did they propose any concrete method of control for the territory, of action among the surrounding groups, of coordination in a search for explanations and knowledge?

If they want to be treated as political and social adults, they should support their arguments better. And they should get a better idea of what's happening in their own home. (...) In this case they revealed an astonishing lack of information. The entry of Huaorani political leaders, in the company of soldiers, police officers and public prosecutors, for the purpose of summarily burying some of the speared corpses, probably did not represent the most lucid moment of their leadership.

Opinions and silences

It's common in Ecuador to give opinions about something that happens in the jungle without having clear information about it; rumors, stories, and fables are enough. That happened again in this case.

(...)

[ October 18, 2003, 02:17 AM: Message edited by: Woodpecker ]

[gone]

Woodpecker, I hear you.

But Shania Twain? Ka-Ching indeed, for just a few months ago she was in the local newspaper here in Otago, trying to convince the Queenstown council to let her buy 16,000 acres near Wanaka for her personal pleasure.

I suppose she could be doing it for our own good… 'That don't impress me much.'

I’m waiting for Eminem’s book at some point. Once he’s worked through the anger I think he might produce something quite extraordinary and bring a lot of people along with him for the ride.

[ October 18, 2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: gelfer ]

[daniel]

woodpecker: "I think a lot of the empty junk that "we" ("our" society) fills itself up with serves a fairly important purpose... "

Actually I emphatically disagree. The only purpose of the empty junk is to keep people distracted, incapable of actually thinking about anything important such as the destruction of the Biosphere or the emptiness of a life without access to the Sacred. The "empty junk" comes in all forms now, from "indy movies" to "high brow" literary fiction that gets front-page reviews all over the place, yet only keeps people focused on the mundane details of human relationships and their navel-gazing nostalgia for their banal childhoods.

The entirety of the culture, with very few exceptions, has become a deadening trance machine, ushering people into deeper and deeper states of unconsciousness. Those new and radical forms that seemed to cause shock when they first appeared are now stultifying garbage.

Gurdjieff's statements on modern culture shocked me when I first read them but I ended up agreeing, after much anguished consideration. I can't remember them well enough to paraphrase them right now, but basically noting the vast gulf between a culture based on uplifting people to some higher vision and the profane culture of the West.

[Rob P]

Hey Daniel

Your Gurdjieff paraphrase reminded me
of a great! book by Robert Bly- The Sibling Society.

Basically he says everyone wants to be as 'hip
and cool' as everyone else- and there are no
elders to look up to because we want to hide away and
forget the old folks....and the old folks just
want to be as young as the kids....

Ok here's the Amazon editorial review:

Poet and storyteller Robert Bly takes the baby boomers to task in this highly charged exposure of midlifers' values. Having become jaded by the abuses of authority, the boomers of North America have torn down the traditional hierarchy within their families and within their communities. What's left is a "cultural flatness," says Bly, where adults cling to self-absorbed adolescent values, television talk shows have more clout than elders, children are spiritually abandoned to fend for themselves, and in the place of community we have built shopping malls. As always, Bly relies on mythology, legends, and poetry to illustrate the morals of his stories. Ultimately this is a hopeful piece of work, nudging midlifers to take on the responsibilities (and therefore the rewards) of adulthood.

seeya!
Rob

[daniel]

I read that Bly book a while back. It was pretty good.

Remembering a bit more of the Gurdjieff idea, I think he was saying that our culture values the individual self-expression above all else, but traditional cultures only valued the way that higher spiritual concepts were expressed in a work of art through proportion, expression, etcetera. This is clear when you look at Tibetan Buddhist art - the thangkas are endless refrains on certain iconographic ideas, with little variations.

This became totally clear to me when I saw a show of Chinese Buddha statues that had recently been found underground, from the 5th century, in Berlin. For days I had been saturated with the usual monotonous splotches and post-modern pranks of contemporary art. As I looked at those graceful works, which were different than other Buddha images I have seen, I realized that everything about them, even the smallest detail, was orchestrated to raise up viewer's perceptions to a higher level, and that tremendous thought had been put into the folds of the drapery, the sinous stance of the Buddha, and his enigmatic smile.

[sire_012]

robp
there are no
elders to look up to because we want to hide away and
forget the old folks....and the old folks just
want to be as young as the kids....i would agree that this was/is the case with the baby boomers because they consciously broke away from their culturual and familial and traditional ties, probably more so than any generation before them.. even the generations that left their home land to come here.

however in my generation and those on either side of mine i have seen a kind of reindoctrination of the elders through some pop culture icons/archetypes. namely i know myself and my friends have always referred to William Burroughs as Uncle Bill, seeing him as having vangaurded so many ideas which we today embrace and strive to make better. say what you will about his approach, but his mind was truly a unique one. also Robert Anton Wilson, Philip K. Dick, Lenny Bruce, Henry Miller, the Beatles... all of these people i think through their courage, sense of humor, and distinctly western wisdom play the role of elders in many peoples lives, in our tribe.

a greater concern that i have had many conversations with people about is that we had no tribesman, had no one of our generation making the great works like they've been made in the past. but i've changed my thoughts on that in the past 8 years or so. i think we had this pop culture, cult of personality explosion between the 30's and the 90's *because* we had lost our elders, and were changing traditions and tribes, and since we had no heroes within our families or tribes we had to project them onto the collective mindscape. (i just think of the footage of girls literally breaking down in tears and screaming when seeing the beatles play. what were they weeping at, the power of these 4 delinquents playing their guitars or the projected loss of their own sense of god status loss and emptiness in the face of these few kids who were jockeying their beauty into the throws of creation?).

but now we've laid the foundation for a new direction in being and fortified that a bit. we've started creating traditions, language, belief systems for our tribe, started to find ourselves amongst the void place of destroying old ways and now we don't need rock stars, etc. as we are bringing that function of grandiosity back into our everyday lives. i think that is one of the major rolls Burning Man plays in our present society, reminding us that its bullshit to go and pay top dollar to see a couple dudes wank off on their egos for 2 hours, when the show is really happening with you wherever you are. and we are all the stars, all equally capable of making amazing creative efects upon the world, if we only allow ourselves to believe that and put ourselves in the situation to nurture that belief.

"every man and woman is a star"

yessum.

[David Orange]

re that bly book:
it sounds like a worthwhile read. i think it will be very interesting, as the baby boomers move into old age, to see how attitudes towards the elderly in our society change. right now, the neglect of and unspoken contempt for "senior citizens" in our society is truly obscene.

re art, sacred and profane, i think that even though we live in desperate times, we need to be careful not to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. i think that individual expression in the arts can almost always only be a good thing; and offers a nice counterpoint to perhaps overly rigid traditional conceptions of sacred art (mind you, i'm not denying the awesome beauty and power of much traditional sacred art).

the danger, i think, is when expression becomes compromised by commercial motivation, or desire for mere fame. however, if we have faith in our deep inner selves, and act from there, then presumably the resulting art will be a reflection of Spirit, and ultimately perform a beneficial role in transforming society. i know that abstract expressionism the hundredth time around holds negative shock value and challenges virtually no one's ideas concerning reality, but surely some of the "postmodern pranks", for instance, are challenging somebody, somewhere.

i think about the issues that daniel brought up here quite a bit; some years back, i thought i should put myself on a very strict diet of abstinence from products of the cultural factory, thinking that it was all a waste of time, and that i should be exclusively devoting myself to pursuit of Liberation and so forth.

i remember asking a friend at the time, "why do you watch movies/read novels? don't you think it's a waste of time?" & she replied, "no, in fact, i think it's a very valuable way to spend time; i think it helps me to learn more about many different types of people and different ways of seeing the world, and that's a good thing". i still felt conflicted, and tended to dismiss the western, "secular" tradition of arts (particularly twentieth-century stuff, which i saw as being largely nihilistic/existentialist self-indulgent, spiritually vacuous) almost wholesale...but gradually i opened myself up to more diverse artistic experiences, anyhow; and attempted to catch up with different visual artists, films, writers, musics, etc.

i wish that i had a neat way of wrapping up these here meanderings of mine; unfortunately, i don't. on the one hand i'm glad that i didn't totally cloister myself and that i delved into what was "out there"...but yet, i still feel ambivalent towards much of the art (and, at the risk of coming off elitist, more "profane" media, i.e. what used to be known as "low culture") that's being created.

i sometimes think, "why did i just spend two hours of my life watching that film? sure, it was interesting, but wouldn't those two hours have been better spent doing spiritual practice?" we live in such odd times, where an unprecedented amount of entertainment is available to us...we can enjoy the artistic fruits of so many periods of so many different cultures. at times it's completely overwhelming, and seems useless, like the "10,000 things" or the world of "red dust" spoken of in chinese philosophy. why entertain yourself to death when you could be unlocking the secrets of your soul, saving humanity, & all that sort of thing?

i suppose in the end it is up to the individual to find the proper balance in their lives. some may wish to go on lengthy retreats; some may simply desire to curb somewhat their intake of media. i'm still trying to determine the proper balance in my life and questioning my motivations and their legitimacy-- is it really that important for me to watch an ozu film (or a trashy tv show smile.gif ) tonight, or am i just trying to distract myself from myself? and if so, is there really anything wrong with that?

to borrow an analogy from chogyam trungpa, (though i think he was referring to balancing work and spiritual practice) one's life situation may be thought of as a sandwich-- you can't just eat two pieces of bread, and obtain nourishment...one also needs some sort of filling in between those two slices of bread. i understand the value of undergoing lengthy retreats, or less ambitiously, engaging in "media fasts"; but generally speaking, surely one needs some raw material to work with, the meaty stuff of life, as fuel on the spiritual path...

or, to take a contrary position, is the bulk of contemporary art/media experiences merely self-indulgent juvenile distraction? more or less a waste of time?

[daniel]

David Orange: "or, to take a contrary position, is the bulk of contemporary art/media experiences merely self-indulgent juvenile distraction? more or less a waste of time? "

Once again, I think the answer to that is clearly yes.

As I suggested with the psychedelic experience, don't just take the trip as a singularity, analyze how it changes your life and social relationships in the months afterwards. If you do the same with our "culture," you find that it has aided people in becoming passive vegetables ruled by borderline psychotic warmongers. The culture of "hip" has been an excuse for terminal narcissism.

As for "wouldn't those two hours have been better spent doing spiritual practice?", my feeling is that parsing out and separating "spiritual practice" from one's daily life is also pointless, for the most part. Why not just manifest a higher level of being in every interaction, and use every moment as a chance to up the voltage on your psyche, rather than thinking you are going to become more "spiritual" by "omm-ing" in some dark corner?

[David Orange]

Daniel writes: "...If you do the same with our "culture," you find that it has aided people in becoming passive vegetables ruled by borderline psychotic warmongers."

doesn't this become a chicken and egg thing at some point, though? can the cultural offerings be entirely blamed? since this is the much-hyped information age/age of globalization, complete with the internet and all, the information for aiding in deprogramming one's self/becoming more conscious is freely available like never before...treks to the himalayas are no longer required; no more desperate searches for out-of-print, poorly translated books...

alternative resources are out there, boatloads of them, but people seem to be uninterested. can this really be blamed on say, the distractions of pop music or reality tv, or, is it fairer to speculate that "the people" themselves, even without any sinister influences from the culture surrounding them, are simply uninterested-- they prefer filling their time with clothes-shopping and cable tv to getting down to the dirty business of examining their souls.

i think it often takes some sort of disaster or great privation to break the spell in people's lives and motivate them to begin to wake up...and even then...we heard much talk of how after the world trade center was destroyed people were becoming less narcissistic, more interested in spirituality, etc. but did this in fact last for very long? and others tend to run straight back to the cocoon of media distraction during harsh times; as deeply confronting their own mortality seems too threatening. then there are all the people around the globe living in impoverished conditions who can hardly wait to break out and start to enjoy all of the excesses of our culture. okay, i guess i'm undermining my own arguments here.

anyway...what i'm trying to say is that the impetus for deep changes in one's self generally originate deep in one's own self; and may not be particularly hindered by the cultural environment surrounding one's self. you yourself daniel, appear to have embarked upon a particular path, yet you do not live in a remote mountain village; quite the contrary...what do you speculate is the difference between your case and that of the millions of others who walk the streets next to you; both you and they are surrounded by the same advertising, shops, various media diversions...but yet presumably only a minority of them have begun a sustained process of seriously investigating the deeper mysteries of life (i'm assuming here that you still live in nyc)

mind you, i'd be the last one to get in line to defend american culture...i'm not trying to launch a full scale argument against your idea of the contaminatng influences of what we are surrounded by...no doubt it's toxic. but i'm saying that there is apparently more at work here-- what other dynamics do you think come into play?

Daniel again: "The culture of "hip" has been an excuse for terminal narcissism."

i agree to a point; i think the culture of "cool" and all that business has definitely become poisonous...but its roots i think were essentially noble-- originating as it did as a response by disenfranchised people in an effort to reclaim their sense of humanity, and inject vitality into a culture that they saw as soulless (i'm thinking of the original african-american jazz "hipsters", and their admirers, the beats). now, of course, it's just a vapid marketing ploy, or even in the underground, an ultimately exclusionary device that feeds right into those with divide-and-conquer strategies. i think that the challenge at hand now is for those who feel disenfranchised in various ways to once again reclaim their humanity, and to express their individuality to the utmost, while avoiding the pitfalls of one-upmanship and recognizing that, at bottom, no one is more "special" than anyone else (though all are special by virtue of their inherent uniqueness)

Daniel: "As for "wouldn't those two hours have been better spent doing spiritual practice?", my feeling is that parsing out and separating "spiritual practice" from one's daily life is also pointless, for the most part. Why not just manifest a higher level of being in every interaction, and use every moment as a chance to up the voltage on your psyche, rather than thinking you are going to become more "spiritual" by "omm-ing" in some dark corner?"

well, surely there are times when it is possible and desirable to practice in a more intense or concentrated fashion then others. i'm thinking of sitting meditation, prayer, various forms of ritual, etc.

aspiring to be mindful in every moment is a noble aim, but perhaps not always entirely possible; and as well seems more diffuse, and lacking in the "charge" produced when one sits in "some dark corner" and takes the time to perform a concentrated practice.

i don't see how one can "manifest a higher level of being in every interaction" without disciplining one's self and setting aside time for more intensive periods of practice. if one takes the time to do so regularly & with the proper mindset, and qualities of devotion/faith, then over time i think there will most definitely be "spiritual" benefits...

as always, motivation is the key factor. if indeed, one is coming from the essentially materialistic motivation of wanting to be more "spiritual", then results will be tainted by that particular motivation. if however, one is motivated from the heart, with a sincere, unselfish desire to ultimately be of benefit to others, then i imagine that one's practice will bear more abundant fruits.

personally i am wary about what i perceive as the tendency in gurdjieffian and some other traditions to employ a "privileged me" vs "poor sheep them" sort of mentality. i'm not opposed to certain very specialized manifestations of elitism or hierarchies; namely those which correspond with and bear out my own intuitions of and observations of reality. however, i see some traditions as overemphasizing "self-remembering" and an "i must change myself from automaton to a truly Conscious Human Being capable of exercising True Will" attitude at the expense of the heart...at the expense of a deeply, deeply compassionate view of humanity which views all with equanimity and eschews superiority complexes founded on dualistic notions of saviourdom...or worse yet, completely ignores one's fellow sufferers ("the dull sheep"!).

pretentiously yours smile.gif ,
Mr. Orange

[gone]

David O – Motivation, indeed, very complex.

I am currently in a motivation vortex. I am in the process of trying to establish a little project to raise discussion and consciousness on a local – NZ – level. General lack of interest is one thing, but I’ve been surprised to receive one or two proactive complaints.

It’s not as if this project is commercial in any way, I’m certainly making nothing other than an effort and I’m not even branding it anything like ‘Gelfer’s Consciousness Raising Project’.

So why get stick from people? Even people in the supposed consciousness-raising community? Perhaps they feel their shamanic drumming workshops are under threat. Who knows?

So I’m wondering how to get past other people’s motivations. Also, looking at my own, I can recognise a *small* amount of self-mythologizing in trying to start something, I’m hoping this isn’t a problematic obstacle – it feels inescapable.

Perhaps I just needed to whinge about it, I feel a little better already.

[marilyn]

Originally posted by daniel:
As for "wouldn't those two hours have been better spent doing spiritual practice?", my feeling is that parsing out and separating "spiritual practice" from one's daily life is also pointless, for the most part. Why not just manifest a higher level of being in every interaction, and use every moment as a chance to up the voltage on your psyche, rather than thinking you are going to become more "spiritual" by "omm-ing" in some dark corner?Exactly, Daniel. The point of power - spiritual power/awareness/consciousness - is always in the present...in all facets of life. Not something that is outside our Selves or our physical reality. It seems to me that the conditioning of society has been to believe that "spiritual practice" is supposed to be something unto itself.

We create our own reality. ;)

[Woodpecker]

Daniel wrote: "woodpecker: "I think a lot of the empty junk that "we" ("our" society) fills itself up with serves a fairly important purpose... "
Actually I emphatically disagree. The only purpose of the empty junk is to keep people distracted, incapable of actually thinking about anything important such as the destruction of the Biosphere or the emptiness of a life without access to the Sacred....The entirety of the culture, with very few exceptions, has become a deadening trance machine, ushering people into deeper and deeper states of unconsciousness."

It's taken me a while to respond to this because I'm really of two minds in it. On the one hand, I emphatically agree. And feel that your approach is really valuable and important, and just what society needs. Bravo. Seriously.

If you're satisfied with that response, then you need read no further.

Now, my other response is somewhat opposed to my first response.

To me, the present question hinges on what we define as empty junk, and on how we react to the various products of the human mind.

Pop quiz for the public: Which of the following is empty junk?

Socialism
Impressionism
Islam
Judaism
Democracy
Publishing houses
Record companies
The telescope
CAT scans
De Kooning's paintings
Basquiat's paintings
Warhol's paintings
Lou Reed's music
Eminem's music
Dr. Dre's music
Joni Mitchell's music
Stevie Wonder's music
Madonna's music
Madonna's interest in the Kabala
James Joyce's books
Lawrence Durrell's books
Tolkien's books
The Lord of the Rings movies
Martin Scorcese's movies
Woody Allen's movies
Gregorian chants
Ice cream
Artificial heart valves made out of plastic
Mayan heart sacrifice
Organic vegetables
Kraft foods
Philadephia cream cheese
Subway trains
Cafe latte
Sanka brand decafeinated coffee
David Blaine's fasting stunt
Lip balm
Scented candles
Champagne
Wine
Asterix and Obelix
Momo
Harry Potter

However you rate the items on the list, there are probably a few that made you stop and think. I want to suggest that many things have plenty of good and evil possibilities mixed up within them.

That brings to mind a kabalistic idea which states that "sparks" of divinity are deeply imbedded, even hidden, within "husks" that are a by-product of creation and lack divinity.

I feel this paradox daily here in Vienna. I have the same reaction to much of the architecture here as you had to the Budda statue. It seems filled with sparks. It seems to have been specifically created for the purpose of uplifting people's souls. I'm referring to Baroque-style apartment buildings built about a hundred years ago. They resemble celestial birthday cakes. It's like living among Mayan palaces. What's the paradox? That the populace that produced those buildings also produced such efficient Nazis and killed off so many of my relatives.

If Blake could see eternity in a grain of sand, it might be possible for the rest of us to find the divine in other "low" places--because, as Ginsberg wrote, "everything is holy."

(Under the rubric of finding divine sparks, I think a kabbalist would place (a) your intent to be more spiritual in everyday life and (b) David Orange's attempts to catch up on his reading. Et cetera.)

One of my great youthful insights gleaned from smoking pot was that energy and ideas from higher dimensions sometimes flow into things and people down here (and, of course, up from lower dimensions too). If I had been stoned here in those days, I'd undoubtably have become convinced that the Viennese architects of 100 years ago were consorting with angels and visiting heaven in their dreams.

One of Ginsberg's great early religious experiences went something like this. (He said this in an interview, in that big book of Ginsberg interviews.) At about 18, he got stoned with his friends and went to a diner near Times Square. The revelation happened while he was eating a hot fudge sundae. The fudge was hot and black, the vanilla ice cream cold and white--it was yin-yang! The perfect harmonic balance of everything! A mandala of the cosmos! All religion, all spirituality condensed and congealed into a completely American religious image--the hot fudge sundae! (Mmmm. Must have tasted good.)

Empty junk? Depends on how you look at it.

Nathan

[daniel]

gelfer,

I can appreciate the difficulties you must be having with your group. It seems that the problem with much of the New Age/consciousness movement is that it really doesn't want to become too conscious. Many New Agers, following the hippies, have made the mistake of rejecting "Left Brain" rational thinking entirely, which means you can bang drums and put up your Tibetan flags without a deeper inquiry into consciousness and cosmology. All I can say, is keep trying!

The problem in our world comes down to consciousness. The only possible way to have a consciousness transformation is: Consciously. People actually have to do the work to push more awareness into their daily lives, on every level, in their relationships and etc. - and for the most part, they don't really want to do it.

I think Jean Gebser makes a very important distinction that the change is not about "consciousness expansion," but consciousness intensification -- and there is no limit to intensification. I would also say it is not about transcendence, but immanence.

woodpecker,

Your list is too indiscriminate. I feel like you are seeking to avoid the issue. Don't you know when you, personally, are wasting time, and when you are not?

These things can be painful. In my late 20s, a friend got me into sports. I started playing and watching basketball, then some baseball and even football. The playing b-ball was great for me, the watching of it was awful. The watching began to grow and the playing time began to shrink. At that point, I was easily distracted, more than now, and I began to really follow the whole sports miasma (it was also the tail-end of a bad time in my life). Finally, as I went through the process described in B O T H, I managed to de-plug the entire sports reality out of my head - it was really like removing an octopus that had nested inside my central nervous system. Now I truly do not give a shit, and I believe - I pray - that I never will again.

Sports-fandom is one of the most forceful mechanisms of social control that our society has stumbled upon. But rap culture, to take one instance from your list, is another disaster. Instead of looking at the talent of this or that individual, I would note that it works globally to induce an aggressively hostile and macho form of trance. Woody Allen films, for the most part, and similar manifestations on that level, help people to stay in a different state of superficiality, obsessed with nostalgia and banal details of human relationships. It is bourgeois kitsch.

I am not saying that these manifestations are "bad." I don't need to make those judgements. I have enjoyed eminem songs and Woody Allen flicks. But they are, like most of the stuff on your list, aspects of a Kali Yuga culture dedicated to planetary destruction, mindless self-indulgence, and mass-trance.

I would prefer to see - and participate in - the creation of a different planetary culture based on entirely opposite principles.

*

David O,

I suggest you rethink your position.

You write: "i see some traditions as overemphasizing "self-remembering" and an "i must change myself from automaton to a truly Conscious Human Being capable of exercising True Will" attitude at the expense of the heart...at the expense of a deeply, deeply compassionate view of humanity which views all with equanimity and eschews superiority complexes founded on dualistic notions of saviourdom"

As I posted elsewhere, you can simultaneously, paradoxically, recognize that most people are at this point pashu while always remembering they have the Divine Spark or Buddha Nature inside of them.

As for the "heart," the only way I can give a gift to others is to attain -- and maintain -- a higher state of consciousness in myself. Compared to the ordinary lying sentimentality that prevails, this perspective may at times seem cold or detached, but it is not. It is truthful, therefore actually helpful. The kind of help offered by most people has too many strings attached.

Also "spirituality" is a word that becomes easily deformed, dried out, and useless.

As I recognize, through my direct experiences, that there are higher states of being, then I simply want to try to act in accordance with them, to the best of my relatively meager abilities.

[David Orange]

daniel,
i'm sure you realize though, that being in a "higher state of consciousness" is far from the be-all and end-all of existence. one can be blissed out, lose their sense of identity/merge with the cosmos or perform whatever their favorite "spiritual" parlor trick is, and it can be all to no end-- just a narcissistic trip of scant more value than sitting in an air-conditioned mcmansion, sipping single malt whisky, while gazing at the satellite television offerings on a huge-screen, high definition, plasma, etc. tv set and being sexually serviced by two of the most desirable sexual "objects" that money can buy...

on the other hand, one can be in a more "lowly" state of consciousness-- one's head aches, one feels generally irritable, alienated, a little scared, but from somewhere within one musters up the impetus to perform a kind, loving deed for someone-- you shovel the snow off the sidewalk of your elderly neighbor, or you suprise your spouse with dinner...sure, these are sort of gushy hallmark card moments, but if inspired by the heart and not mere sentimentality, then they represent humanity at its best. what higher consciousness is there then pure love/compassion?

i think that chasing after "higher states of consciousness" can be a pitfall. isn't this sort of thing what trungpa decried with his concept of "spiritual materialism"? one discovers a new way to feel "special"-- the search for higher states of being, more spiritual states; not realizing that this search is itself part of the trash that one must discard in order to realize one's true (buddha)nature.

Woodpecker, i enjoyed your post. going down your list, i don't think there's anything i would be able to discard as "empty junk", with the probable exception of Kraft foods and Philadelphia cream cheese (which i believe is subsumed within the catagory of the former). oh, and mayan heart sacrifice! (which is obselete now that kraft foods exist to destroy people's hearts...)

Daniel writes: "Woody Allen films, for the most part, and similar manifestations on that level, help people to stay in a different state of superficiality, obsessed with nostalgia and banal details of human relationships."

i disagree. i think his films have explored very important aspects of human relationships..."romance", commitment, jealousy, infidelity, etc. if you can really dismiss his films so casually, then i suppose you must dwell on a much more rarified plane then the rest of us who are wallowing in "bourgeois kitsch" and still struggling with the banal world of relationships. the "banal details" are what, added up, form the grand whole of a relationship, or an individual human life...

& i don't understand how you can deny the importance of nostalgia in human consciousness, and the role that reflecting on the mysterious phenomena of nostalgia and memory plays along the spiritual path...go ask proust!

[Halfglass]

This thread has twisted but about the m.t.v generation.... I think whats happened is electric music, rock and roll has peaked. It was a renaissance, came and went. I play guitar (20 some years) and I can tell you, all the licks, all the good ones, have been grabbed. The opening to Hendrix's "Foxy Lady", Z-Z Top's "Tush"--Sabbath grabbed every metal lick there was and it took 20 years to put a nail in that one. One cannot play anywhere near these old licks without it sounding like a rip-off of something...the blues turn-around...there's nowhere to go with it. (Play a flute in a rock band? S'been done.) The spirit of the sixties had been sincere people who thought change was coming and it was gonna be great. Now these people are driving gas guzzlin' tanks and talking about everything dull. Philosophy likewise has gone out of the youth already these days. There seems to be a struggle against time, against over crowding--no time to sift through guitar chops for the lost chord--we'll all be dead soon we need to get our bling-bling holm. In an end-of-the-world situation (everybody feels it) there's gonna be people (most of 'em) going for the get-it-while-you-can mode. But what happened? Money is God now, oh well this is going to be some story.

[ October 21, 2003, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: Halfglass ]

[daniel]

Halfglass,

I agree that rock music has played itself out. The former music of rebellion is now blasted as background sound in every restaurant, cafe, and bar... it is part of the white noise that one has to fight against in order to think.

Rock and roll symbolized a particular ego-structure and a particular relationship to technology (a kind of heroic shamanic stance) and both, perhaps, are now dated. Trance and techno music seem more accurate now, as kind of psychic processing devices for the masses, but I admit they often leave me wanting more of the Romantic Ego and lyrical organic to assert itself - perhaps there can be some integration.

I really liked sire's points above: "i think we had this pop culture, cult of personality explosion between the 30's and the 90's *because* we had lost our elders, and were changing traditions and tribes, and since we had no heroes within our families or tribes we had to project them onto the collective mindscape."

One problem is that most of the counterculture "saints" were such wounded humans that it is hard to know how to follow. I don't think Burroughs or Leary presents a model for a life I would want to lead. Ginsberg is more interesting - not his writing so much as his social generosity: He kept a lot of his community alive and let them live on his farm or in his house. He wasn't perfect, but he manifested compassion and a higher state of consciousness in his daily existence.

David Orange,

I don't really see much point in continuing debating these subjects with you. Either you are just being contrarian out of boredom, or you have a very adolescent perspective that doesn't allow you to comprehend what I am talking about.

Spiritual materialism is something different - it is, for instance, the embrace of the new Yogic/Raw Foodist lifestyle I see all around me in NY, replacing one consumerist elitist system with another one.

Achieving a higher state of consciousness has nothing to do with blissing out, performing spiritual parlor tricks, or merging with the All. It is about manifesting, in the here and now, to the best of one's ability. As Arguelles might put it, it is about seeking to become a "Noospheric Chip" of the Gaian Mind.

I recently saw the Dalai Lama at Town Hall in NY, conversing all day long with Western activists, environmentalists, and journalists. Basically, what he was trying to impart to them, in very simple teachings, was how to move to a higher and more all-embracing level of consciousness.For each one, he had specific points to make. Paul Hawken, for instance, bemoaned the state of the world environment and the accelerating destruction of every living system on the planet. The DL agreed that this was so, but noted that he has also seen a lot of progress in people's attitudes, so there is something positive taking place. Similarly, Amy Goodman and Katrina Van Der Heuvel of WBAI and The Nation, respectively, wailed and gnashed their teeth at the government, spewing negativity and anger. The DL pointed out that it was good to criticize, but it was also important to put forward a positive vision - something The Nation, for one example, completely fails to do. The Left has this way of being in love with negativity - vibing off the horror of the Right without having any deeply transformative ideas of their own.

Anyway, that quick recap probably sounds way too flat - but to me the whole afternoon was an incredible display of what it means to manifest from a higher level.

I felt that Woody Allen's affair with his stepdaughter and his plaintive Ego cry of the "Heart wants what it wants" was a pure indication of his level of consciousness, manifested in all of his products. I am not saying I don't like Woody Allen - I grew up with his movies and loved them - but I think it is clear he represents another version of the diseased monstrous (usually male) Ego that is the nightmare of Western civilization, annihilating the planet to fulfill its pointless wants and lusts, then waxing nostalgiac about what they destroy.

[sire_012]

daniel
One problem is that most of the counterculture "saints" were such wounded humans that it is hard to know how to follow. I don't think Burroughs or Leary presents a model for a life I would want to lead. Ginsberg is more interesting - not his writing so much as his social generosity: He kept a lot of his community alive and let them live on his farm or in his house. He wasn't perfect, but he manifested compassion and a higher state of consciousness in his daily existence. i would agree, but would also say that this is a good argument for why a plurality of elders is needed as opposed to a singular elder. where ginsburg was indeed setting an example of putting motion where the movement's mouth was, burroughs created and propelled many ideas which are now finally coming into full swing. he spoke at length concerning 'eletronic tribalism' or the refashioning of the western mind with the tribal mind, he pioneered many consciousness shifiting experiments including word cut ups, psionics experiments like his photography magick, helped popularize gysin's 'dream machine', matured the surrealists' investigations into the line between art/magick, as well as all but laying the blueprint for chaos magick. and again, chaos magick and results based magick in general certainly has its negative attributes, but it is arguably a very important cultural act of self-awareness in the process of reestablishing us as magickal or shamanic beings. chaos magick, and many of burroughs contributions to the western consciousness explosion of the late 20th century, played the part of the rebellious teen in many ways, allowing us to rebel against the ways of the 'dying god' in order to strip our actions down to bare bone function and rediscover our spiritual lineage, our place amongst the transformative people of the universe. burroughs was an extremely important player, allowing us to investigate eastern systems, and esoteric western systems, and bring some science back into them, removing the dogma and allowing for an investigation and activation of the truly effective parts.

does this mean everyone should take up a lifelong habit of banging heroin and seeking out young latino boys for pleasure troughs? mmmm, definitely not. but i think we need to take what we can from these people while being mindful of their damages. imagine the compassion of ginsberg combined with the razor sharp intellect and intuition of burroughs, they are effective apart but together could be (and were) truly amazing.

[ October 22, 2003, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: sire_012 ]

[David Orange]

Daniel: "I don't really see much point in continuing debating these subjects with you. Either you are just being contrarian out of boredom, or you have a very adolescent perspective that doesn't allow you to comprehend what I am talking about."

uh, thanks for being so condescending... :confused:

...for what it's worth, i'm not trying to "debate" anything with you. i find posting here to be a worthwhile activity, because by thinking through and writing down my thoughts i am better able to clarify certain things for myself...and part of that process is the valuable feedback from and interaction with everyone who participates in this forum.

i certainly don't expect you to reply in every instance in which i respond to something you've posted; particularly if you feel it's a waste of your time (lord knows the internet threatens to be an even more insidious time-waster than tv). however, i'd be lying if i didn't admit to feeling insulted by your accusing me of being contrarian for contrariness' sake, or your suggesting that i lack the sophistication to "get" what you're talking about.

"Spiritual materialism is something different - it is, for instance, the embrace of the new Yogic/Raw Foodist lifestyle I see all around me in NY, replacing one consumerist elitist system with another one."

that may be one manifestation of spiritual materialism; but basically it is in fact exactly what i wrote that it was...as a rule the ego seeks to confirm its existence by various ploys. one ploy is through deciding to be "spiritual"...to be more "transcendent", to have a "higher" view of the world. spirituality then becomes just another ornament for the ego, an alternative way of feeling special/more exalted than others and thus ostensibly confirming its existence.

from what i understand, authentic spirituality involves seeing through all of these games the mind plays in its attempts to fortify the illusory ego-- as opposed to reinforcing the illusion through building it up with various strategies, be they material or spiritual ones. in spiritual materialism, the ego decides to take up a spiritual path, thinking, "great, now i have an even more refined, more rarified way of feeling superior to others...pity those poor saps still chasing after $ and status..."... & thus an obstacle is created which hinders spiritual progress.

ego has always presumed to run the show-- formerly it was ambitious to obtain status in the material world; while now it seeks to aquire and immerse itself in "spiritual" odds and ends; siddhis, false humility, meditative bliss, the pride/bragging rights of being on a "spiritual path", "higher" states of consciousness...however, authentic spirituality is a process by which the illusory ego, with all of its game-playing, is laid to rest once and for all...the sham exposed.

"Achieving a higher state of consciousness has nothing to do with blissing out, performing spiritual parlor tricks, or merging with the All."

at any rate those things most certainly describe the popular conception of higher states of consciousness-- one does yoga/meditates & feels blissful; one may acquire siddhis; one goes through all the classical mystical states often described as increasing degrees of merging with/being absorbed by the Absolute.

"As Arguelles might put it, it is about seeking to become a "Noospheric Chip" of the Gaian Mind."

gee, that sounds great; where do i sign up? :rolleyes:

"I recently saw the Dalai Lama at Town Hall in NY, conversing all day long with Western activists, environmentalists, and journalists. Basically, what he was trying to impart to them, in very simple teachings, was how to move to a higher and more all-embracing level of consciousness.For each one, he had specific points to make. Paul Hawken, for instance, bemoaned the state of the world environment and the accelerating destruction of every living system on the planet. The DL agreed that this was so, but noted that he has also seen a lot of progress in people's attitudes, so there is something positive taking place...The Left has this way of being in love with negativity - vibing off the horror of the Right without having any deeply transformative ideas of their own."

i've heard this complaint voiced before, but as i see it, the left is full of folks with transformative ideas-- was it not the left who visualized and attempted to bring to life a world with humane labor standards, universal health care (in parts of europe, at least), the ecological movement, peace think tanks, prison reform, the various civil rights movements, the continuing struggle for human rights?...to name just a few examples... even in the lame-ass democratic party, there remain a few people voicing positive, visionary ideas; Dennis Kucinich, for one.

"Anyway, that quick recap probably sounds way too flat - but to me the whole afternoon was an incredible display of what it means to manifest from a higher level."

i have plenty of respect for the Dalai Lama, but i can't help but wonder where he saw progress in people's attitudes regarding the environment...tibet is being trashed by the chinese govt., india, his current place of residence, is making disasterous environmental decisions, and in the u.s., the streets are clogged with suv's; decent public transportation systems are a rarity & what ones exist are in many cases crumbling; many communities have scaled back or eliminated their recycling programs; and there is continuous broad public support for an administration which seems bent upon destroying life on the planet as rapidly as possible. & the opposition as manifested by the democratic party, in large part seems to involve the same program of destruction; just at a slightly more leisurely pace.

"I felt that Woody Allen's affair with his stepdaughter and his plaintive Ego cry of the "Heart wants what it wants" was a pure indication of his level of consciousness, manifested in all of his products."

i don't agree that his immaturity or whatever one wishes to call his behavior in that department is manifested in all of his output. my theory is that neurotic, confused (and who among us do not qualify as both?) people often make sublime art; not because of their f*cked-upness, but rather because in confronting their foibles during the creative process, there are occasional tears in the fabric of their deluded worldview, through which they are able to obtain glimpses of a more whole, sane, and deeper perspective. the truth/beauty of this revelation is what ends up shining through in their art. i suppose it is an alchemical process of sorts... & i reckon that in woody allen's case, in his later years his creative process has grown more superficial; hence the lagging quality of his films, and the re-hashing of the same old themes.

"I am not saying I don't like Woody Allen - I grew up with his movies and loved them - but I think it is clear he represents another version of the diseased monstrous (usually male) Ego that is the nightmare of Western civilization, annihilating the planet to fulfill its pointless wants and lusts, then waxing nostalgiac about what they destroy."

i think it is clear that he's a flawed human being, who screws up often, & sometimes in major ways...just like all the rest of us.

& i think you're giving western "civilization" (apologies to gandhi for stealing his joke) too much credit-- Moloch (apologies to ginsberg for stealing his imagery) doesn't even seem nostalgic for what has been destroyed, as far as i can tell.

daniel, what with some of the sweeping generalizations & grand pronouncements it seems to me that you're making, i'm starting to worry that you're becoming even more of a crank than i am-- & that's not a good thing! :D

[daniel]

David,

What I hear in your posts, above all, is the urge to postpone. You don't want to do the work of transformation on yourself right now, you don't feel you are ready, so you are finding a large number of justifications as to why either the work is not necessary or the current cultural system is okay enough as it is.

From my perspective, I believe that Time is quickly running out on the entire value system and socio-economic structure of this culture. As Paul Hawken put it, "Every living system on Earth is in rapid and accelerating decline." It is long past the time to debate the relative merits of Woody Allen or Eminem.

As for "spirituality" and "Ego", they are just words. If you manifest now, if you work continually to intensify your consciousness, you stop clinging to them.

As Rilke put it: "Will the transformation."

[gone]

This is certainly the crux of the matter – of the whole board. The shift from rhetoric (which is pretty cheap) to transformation.

[As an aesthetic side note I feel a new word is needed for the ‘transformation’ mantra – I feel it doesn’t resonate. Don’t ask me what it should be though – yet.]

For the sake of cyclical imagery let’s bring this back to poor Mr Timberlake. I also saw him on that show Punk’d where people screw other people over for fun (I must stop watching this crap TV). After being Punk’d Timberlake decided he deserved to Punk someone else – this time Kelly Osbourne, He actually said, ‘Instead of paying it forward (presumably a reference to the good-vibes movie of the same name) I’m going to Punk it forward.’ Then he laughed. Here we have someone of major cultural significance (whether we like it not) laughing about screwing someone over on network TV. On the other channel the Israeli Defence Minister shouts in a press conference about how he’s going to blow up Yasser Arafat.

This is what we’re up against – proactive, undiluted, unapologetic hate. The way now, personified by Bush, is to abandon any pretence of civilisation and discussion and to present all-out critical, cultural and actual murder.

But the move from rhetoric to transformation is the hardest there is. We are all masters of rhetoric and rhetoric is itself and important aspect in the path to transformation.

God help us all to make the necessary shift, I for one find it almost impossible to move beyond a kind of ‘charity begins at home’ transformation to one which actually stretches out into the world. While the former is necessary for the latter, in itself it probably is not enough.

[David Orange]

Originally posted by daniel:

"What I hear in your posts, above all, is the urge to postpone. You don't want to do the work of transformation on yourself right now, you don't feel you are ready, so you are finding a large number of justifications as to why either the work is not necessary or the current cultural system is okay enough as it is."

????!! where on earth are you getting all of that from? you're certainly making some wild leaps and assumptions regarding how i live my life.

i'm not postponing anything; i do the work that i feel needs to be done in my own life situation. i never implied that doing "the work" wasn't necessary; i was simply calling into question methods that i see as being faulty or potentially counter-effective approaches to transformation. in my own life i take an approach which i hope avoids those particular pitfalls.

& far from implying that the cultural system is okay as it is, in fact, i have made statements such as "i'd be the last person to get in line to defend american culture". i know i go on and on and on, such that lack of time or interest may have prevented you from reading carefully enough to avoid overlooking/misinterpreting what i'm saying...but i'm nonetheless bummed that you took it upon yourself to offer me a condescending line about how i'm postponing/unwilling to begin the work on transformation.

"From my perspective, I believe that Time is quickly running out on the entire value system and socio-economic structure of this culture. As Paul Hawken put it, "Every living system on Earth is in rapid and accelerating decline." It is long past the time to debate the relative merits of Woody Allen or Eminem."

well, you found the time to make lofty declarations regarding the "level of consciousness" that woody allen is operating at...& this is a "discussion board", so i come here to discuss. if the situation is as dire as you make it out to be (and granted, i think it's pretty dire...and then some...) then why bother to maintain this forum at all? if you're going to throw out your opinions on subjects, be they woody allen films or anthroposophy, then people are going to want to do a little back-and-forth.

i'm sure that you're a very busy person and quite probably your leisure time is wasted on discussing things with blowhards like me smile.gif , but it is frustrating when you completely misinterpret/ignore what someone has written, and respond simply with condescending interpretations and projections. if you can't find the time to respond to what i have actually written, but respond rather to your own dodgy gloss of it, then why bother to respond at all? as i guess i'm mainly thinking out loud here, anyway, i would prefer that you would ignore me rather than posting a glib, patronizing response that bears little relation to my original post.

"As for "spirituality" and "Ego", they are just words. If you manifest now, if you work continually to intensify your consciousness, you stop clinging to them."

i'm not so sure...depending on your approach to "intensifying your consciousness", you may risk building up the ego habit further...or wasting time in spiritual fantasyland. that is why motivation is so crucial; that is why trungpa raged about spiritual materialism...surely you can see how having ambitions to "intensify one's consciousness" can easily serve to increase and reinforce the habit of clinging to the ego. how are such ambitions, then, any different from more mundane ones, if they are both in the service of the ego? the exception would be the western so-called left hand path ("black magic"), which explicitly seeks to glorify the ego as much as possible; in contrast to most other traditions, which either seek to dissolve it, merge it with/put it under the service of the Absolute, or recognize its illusoriness.

lastly, i want to mention that i'm somewhat unsure as to exactly what you have in mind when you talk about "intensifying consciousness" or aiming for a "higher level" of consciousness. it seems to me that you've been vague on this matter; for instance, you wrote that, "It is about manifesting, in the here and now, to the best of one's ability." your use of the word "manifest" in this context is particularly cryptic to me. (manifest what?)

lsd and other drugs certainly intensify consciousness, but i don't know that it would be desirable to be in an lsd-type mindspace on a permanent basis. please understand that i'm not challenging you or trying to attack you here; rather i'm curious and interested in clarifying what you have in mind when you mention this as beng a goal.

the vague notion of expanded consciousness doesn't do much for me; i need something to get a handle on-- as in the different traditions where we find various goals differing in approach, such as establishing a closer relationship with a deity, or realizing one's true nature, and the like. the idea of simply expanding/increasing/intensifying consciousness leaves me a little cold; surely there is some increase in love and wisdom involved there, and one is not simply embarking on the project of becoming a sort of superconscious nietzschean superman...

[daniel]

David,

I apologize if my tone sounds condescending to you. I am trying to condense my thoughts as efficiently possible to preserve psychic energy for other writing. I do consider this discussion board to be part of my "work." Also, of course, I enjoy communicating about these ideas. And I do appreciate your serious interest in these matters, even if I utterly disagree with your views.

In the past, you have written that psychedelic explorations are not your thing anymore. You have also noted about the Tantric "transformation of the passions … while this practice is said to be of great importance during this dark age, ... only suitable for those possessing the requisite maturity and sophistication. personally, i have great doubts that i fall into that category..." I take it from this and implications in other posts that you don’t really want to do much work to change.

You recognize that modern culture might be "red dust," or waste matter. You see that most people are content to remain as passive automatons programmed by an increasingly poisonous culture, but you are not sure it is a bad thing. Maybe it is better to just give in and indulge, your posts suggest. If not enimen, why not ozu?

What you keep putting forward is a "What’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?" vision. The answer is – nothing. Nothing is wrong with anything, in fact. As that Hindu dude says in I Am That, the world and the self perfect – it is only our attitude that has to change.

I know it may sound elitist, but I once again have to return to the ideas of Gurdjieff, Evola, Guenon, and even Steiner. Yes, in the ultimate state, everyone is in fact equal, each is equally a "Divine Spark," possessing the possibility of realizing Buddha nature. However, in our current relative reality, there are differences. There are differences that are like different "ontological states." If you completely reject these ideas, there isn’t much for us to talk about.

Evola: "The correspondence between death and initiation (initation = active death) has always been acknowledged: we can find specific testimonies concerning it in Western antiquity. This correspondence is not allegorical but real: It refers to an ontological change of state within the hierarchy of various states of being."

While not claiming I am in anyway better or superior to any other human, I do believe that I have gone through a process of self-initiation, some of which is described in my book. You may not agree, and I may be wrong. What I learned from this process is that the world becomes almost entirely different after you change. In one of the last chapters of B O T H, there are some long quotes from Gurjdieff that express this well.

You achieve a different understanding of the affective emotions, for instance. From Evola’s The Yoga of Power again: "Those who follow this path … eventually come to realize, through direct experience, that passions, emotions, and impulses are only mitigated, variously conditioned manifestations and faint echoes of powers." (Powers being nonhuman forces or even ‘entities’). Steiner talks of the thinking, feeling, and willing centers of the brain separating, so you can observe their functioning and make more objective decisions. I do think intensification is a much better way of describing the change rather than "higher" or "expanded" consciousness.

I actually hate to say this, but it is now clear to me anyway that unless one progresses toward these other states (of self-remembering, intensified consciousness), all of one’s decisions will tend to create the same faults and errors that the culture already manifests on every level. The kind of let’s say normal "liberal" compassion that manifests in social programs etc reflects the same flaws – it is not ultimately and completely thought through to the end.

What should one do? One should self-initiate, then do whatever one does best at a deeper level. As I am a writer, I write. If I was an organizer, I would organize. If I was a farmer or an industrialist or businessman, I would study Paul Stamets and John Todd’s work and Steiner’s biodynamics and seek to create fully self-regenerating systems in accordance with natural systems as prototypes for a new planetary culture. Etc, etc.

[whitewave]

Daniel writes:
What should one do? One should self-initiate, then do whatever one does best at a deeper level. As I am a writer, I write. If I was an organizer, I would organize. If I was a farmer or an industrialist or businessman, I would study Paul Stamets and John Todd’s work and Steiner’s biodynamics and seek to create fully self-regenerating systems in accordance with natural systems as prototypes for a new planetary culture. Etc, etc.

I have not written anything here since last winter, although I have been following the threads a bit to see if there were any which would benefit from my contribution, instead of contributing out of a need to debate or prove to myself how articulate or intelligent I am. Of course, others may participate for other reasons, I just became suspiscious of my own motives, for me, inherent in any debate, is the need to prove one's point, to be declared the victor at the end, and I have not wanted to participate in the intellectual dominance which this requires. I was not really aware of this when I stopped writing. In fact, I have been somewhat intimidated by the level of discussion here, feeling rather inarticulate and unknowledgeable. Now I see I was intuitively moving into silence out of a need to use words (I, too am a writer) in a way that will best benefit others. So, Daniel, I like what you say at the end of your last post. All through this thread, I have been wondering--so what are we supposed to do? Like silence, the answer is simple, really, although maybe not as spectacular as we want it to be.

[David Orange]

Originally posted by daniel:
"David,

I apologize if my tone sounds condescending to you."

i, in turn, apologize for getting wound up. i realize that there is always a fundamental disconnect in this mode of communication, and that one's intended tone doesn't always carry across too well. i shudder to think how my posts must read to other people...it brings to mind the embarrassing shock of hearing one's voice on a tape recorder-- 'god, do i really sound like that?'

"I am trying to condense my thoughts as efficiently possible to preserve psychic energy for other writing."

sounds wise.

"I do consider this discussion board to be part of my "work." Also, of course, I enjoy communicating about these ideas. And I do appreciate your serious interest in these matters, even if I utterly disagree with your views."

well, i think you're half-crazy for having this board and participating on it...since any nut like me can wonder on in and start pontificating-- and then you're even foolish enough to respond!

...but i also think it's very noble of you; and i, along with i'm sure everyone else who wanders in here, appreciate both your providing this forum as well as your participation in it.

"In the past, you have written that psychedelic explorations are not your thing anymore. You have also noted about the Tantric "transformation of the passions … while this practice is said to be of great importance during this dark age, ... only suitable for those possessing the requisite maturity and sophistication. personally, i have great doubts that i fall into that category..." I take it from this and implications in other posts that you don’t really want to do much work to change."

yes, psychedelic explorations are not a practical option for me right now-- that's not entirely my choice, and it's maybe too complicated to go into right now & right here...
& my comments/reservations about the transformation of the passions refer to what i imagine you'd concur are fairly esoteric & advanced practices, which one ideally learns from someone who has already treaded on that path-- & such persons are not so easy to find, particularly for the karmically disadvantaged such as myself. my disavowal of possessing the necessary maturity/sophistication was a token attempt at expressing (likely false?) humility.

of course i want to change, and despite my tendencies towards laziness/procrastination & other human weaknesses, i generally don't mind doing the work that it requires. i think that for some reason you were misinterpreting my questioning/criticism of certain methods as being indicative of sheer laziness on my part. i do in fact maintain a "practice"; i just happen to have some strong opinions regarding certain approaches that i've decided against following, and i'm not shy about expressing them here. i believe that there are many pitfalls on the path, and i flatter myself by thinking that perhaps i am just wise enough to alert others to some of those possible stumbling blocks...or at any rate, i like to bring them up for discussion.

"You recognize that modern culture might be "red dust," or waste matter. You see that most people are content to remain as passive automatons programmed by an increasingly poisonous culture, but you are not sure it is a bad thing. Maybe it is better to just give in and indulge, your posts suggest. If not enimen, why not ozu?"

no, i definitely think that our poisonous culture and people's trancelike stupor are bad things. we're in agreement there. i was questioning the degree to which the culture can actually be blamed for people's stupor. if you figure that all, say, urban dwellers are essentially living in that same contaminated cultural environment, then why do some "break out" while others (perhaps most) remain robotized? it occurs to me that there must be other factors at work; factors within the individual...as well as other circumstances. otherwise it seems to me that the characterization of the situation becomes oversimplified; as when people heap blame on representations of violence in the media whenever there is any actual violence carried out by individuals.

i would add that, i think that many persons who possess a certain amount of discrimination are able to process all sorts of cultural "junk" while keeping their higher faculties intact, and in many cases even derive benefit or insight from the junk.

for instance, i'd wager that you, daniel, could listen to eminem's music and would be able to place it in a deep context that the average 14 year-old or even 40 year-old probably wouldn't be able to...& quite possibly, by virtue of what you bring to the experience, you might derive much insight...for instance, i've watched terrible television programs or listened to crappy music while under the influence of psychedelics and i feel that in the process i learned volumes about our culture and about human systems in general...kind of like taking a crash course in cultural studies but without having too wade through all that dense writing of those french theorists. i recall in BOtH you mentioning having a similar experience in your engagements with media following a dpt experience...

(...& for what it's worth, i think that ozu's films truly qualify as "sacred" art...i can't say the same about eminem's music, but perhaps others with deeper perception would be able to appreciate the sacredness in what he does...)

"...I know it may sound elitist, but I once again have to return to the ideas of Gurdjieff, Evola, Guenon, and even Steiner. Yes, in the ultimate state, everyone is in fact equal, each is equally a "Divine Spark," possessing the possibility of realizing Buddha nature. However, in our current relative reality, there are differences. There are differences that are like different "ontological states." If you completely reject these ideas, there isn’t much for us to talk about."

no, i pretty much agree with you there; and, as i stated before, i don't have a problem with certain manifestations of elitism. a brief tangent: mind you, i am not a big fan of those who go around bashing "political correctness"; i think in many cases those folks are looking for a way to justify their racism or various other malignant -isms. but i do get irritated when people try to pretend that there are absolutely no fundamental differences among human beings. at times i have been subject to kneejerk accusations of "dehumanizing", for the crime of daring to make a comment about what i saw as being the close-mindedness of most americans...or for suggesting that it may be possible to talk about such a thing as "mainstream america". "all men are created equal" is sometimes grossly misinterpreted, to the detriment of us all.

that being said, i do worry sometimes that people embarking on a path aimed at personal spiritual transformation may tend to smugly look down their noses at others who appear to be uninterested in undergoing such transformation. for instance, i definitely see this tendency in myself. & although i can correct it somewhat by recognizing the delicate distinction that you speak of-- that ultimately all possess the divine spark, but nevertheless for now, those who are not consciously progressing towards gnosis are on one level basically sheep-- i fear that the tendency still remains to glorify myself at the expense of those others, however subtle it may be.

i am not entirely sure how to properly address this issue, but i think that trungpa, particularly in his books "cutting through spiritual materialism", "the myth of freedom", and "crazy wisdom", spoke to aspects of this problem in a most eloquent and sophisticated fashion. at worst, i think i run the risk of achieving the most undesirable state of what trungpa termed, if i remember correctly, "supreme egohood", or becoming a "spiritual gorilla"...in which ego basically has comandeered the entire spiritual process (which was supposed to be the final dethroning of ego) and says "i'm spiritual now, & so can do anything i want...if you unelightened sheep have a problem with my actions, then tough-- after all, i'm the enlightened one here!" in a less extreme scenario, i think i run the risk of deeply insulting people who for whatever reason do not share my particular (or possibly any other) spiritual trip...or that i may simply be disrespecting the natural order of things; the gradual unfolding of all souls in their own time, in their own fashion.

"...While not claiming I am in anyway better or superior to any other human, I do believe that I have gone through a process of self-initiation, some of which is described in my book. You may not agree, and I may be wrong. What I learned from this process is that the world becomes almost entirely different after you change..."

the world certainly greatly changed for me after my initial experiences with psychedelics-- though i was also "coming of age" at the same time, and lost my virginity as well; so it was a triple whammy, and it's hard to seperate the aftereffects of these experiences from each other. as well, the world itself seemed to me to be undergoing great changes; so it became difficult for me to determine at times... did everything become so different because i had taken mind-altering drugs, or because i was living on my own for the first time, or because the world itself was going through great changes, or because i was plowing through all kinds of eye-opening spiritual literature?...

"...I actually hate to say this, but it is now clear to me anyway that unless one progresses toward these other states (of self-remembering, intensified consciousness), all of one’s decisions will tend to create the same faults and errors that the culture already manifests on every level. The kind of let’s say normal "liberal" compassion that manifests in social programs etc reflects the same flaws – it is not ultimately and completely thought through to the end."

hmmm...i would argue almost the opposite; that those social programs are ineffective because they are the products of too much thinking, and not enough genuine compassion-- they may based on some semblance of compassion; a vague sentiment, but it's not quite "the real thing". i think that the problem is not the "bleeding heart" attitude so often decried, but rather that our hearts don't bleed enough, and thus our energies are over-diverted to our analytical, overthinking minds. There is not enough Heart in the world, to be sure; while there damn sure is more than enough thinking/analyzing.

& as for the self-remembering process and that sort of thing, yes, compassion definitely needs to be wedded to wisdom, and by definition, that wisdom would include a keenly discriminating intellect, capable of being dispassionate...but i think that compassion still must need be the driving force; the raw energy fueling the process. otherwise, i think one runs the risk of ending up a sort of psychic superman, which in the short term may be great for one's self, but is not of any lasting benefit to the greater world.

since transformation of the passions seems rather a risky business, i would suggest that harnessing them is a safer option-- as is done on the various devotional paths. then strong emotional energies may be diverted/harnessed and put into the service of single-pointed devotion-- a most powerful source of energy; perhaps the most powerful there is...the other business involved in the advanced tantric paths, that of recognizing the actual divine quality which underlies and is the true manifestation of each "crude" emotion, seems to me to be a rather tricky business.

[daniel]

David: "i was questioning the degree to which the culture can actually be blamed for people's stupor."

This to me is a non-question. The culture and people’s stupor are mirror images of each other, and self-reinforce one another. We don’t have to waste time with chicken-and-egg questions that lead nowhere. As Gurdjieff said, deevolution "goes like a pianola," like a ball rolling down a hill. Evolution is hazardous and delicate.

David: "i would argue almost the opposite; that those social programs are ineffective because they are the products of too much thinking, and not enough genuine compassion"

From my perspective, you are most definitely wrong about this. Let me try to explain… In The Times yesterday, for instance, Paul Krugman wrote about how the Republicans were disorting the numbers on "job creation." Most social progressives would like to see full employment – jobs programs and the like – and believe that work in itself is a positive thing.

I see no value in the work that most people do, except that, at the present low level of consciousness, they would go insane if they weren’t kept constantly distracted. In fact, most of the work that people are doing is not only of no value but it directly contributes to planetary deterioration – they are helping more goods and services circulate, more car sales, more buying, more encroachment on wilderness, etc. Our society is based on fundamental "irrational rationality" (Marcuse). Weren’t machines supposed to be "labor saving" devices? Instead, we became slaves of the machines, trapped in a system that creates endless "false needs" while leaving real ones unfulfilled.

The liberals and Leftists start from the same "Reign of Quantity" ideology as the conservatives. Their "compassion" as well as their intellect is based on a faulty vision. From a materialist/nihilist perspective – the perspective of The Nation, for instance – there is no meaningful place to go. That is why they are so comfortable carping and criticizing – they have no vision.

What is the purpose of human life on Earth? "What are people for?" as Wendell Berry put it. I think that we can take some answers from indigenous/shamanic cultures and high spiritual cultures such as the Tibetan Buddhists: We are meant to exist in balance with the Earth ("to transform the Earth," Steiner said), and we are meant to work on our own spiritual/consciousness development through the various techniques and yogas available to us. For some, this would be essentially bhakti yoga, a devotional approach, for others it would be the Tantric Left Hand path seeking self-deification (not "a risky business" but a psychic necessity for those called to it). The entire society would be orchestrated toward beautifying the Earth into an immaculate garden state while helping the individual intensify his own state of being, by moving to deeper levels of wisdom and understanding and immanence. Learning to interact with other levels of cosmic sentience and the dimensions/intervals available through psychedelics and deep meditational states would, of course, be part of the project.

I don’t see many liberals/progressives offering programs of this type.

[Buzz]

whitewave,

speared any striped bass lately?

I kind of look at this forum as a pot-luck where we all bring ideas to the dinner table. In my view, reality is a flexible condition. Many truths, many overlap. I'm personally not trying to convince anyone that I am right/write. Kind of fun reading, and chewing on food for thought. Miss your input. We (guys) need input from the ladies.

Daniel,

I think some liberals and some conservatives have good intentions. Some are out of their own political loop. Myself, I lean to the left, but I'm an independant. Sure, its great to have a good job, and we (in the west) certainly think we are more comfortable when the economy is good. But when the economy is good, million dollar summer homes are constructed on what were once quiet country lanes. I've lived long enough to see my beloved Blue Ridge Mountains carved up so some dweeb can keep up with the Jones's, by having a very expensive home they can spend Christmas and a couple of weeks in the summer in. Some people will do anything for money and to live up to the bumper stricker philosophy, "he who dies with the most toys wins". We are a sad people. The two dominate political parties would like nothing more for us than to pick a side and rush to their defense, "divide and conquer." That is only going to perpetuate the status quo. Complaints will be made, parties will pick an all too predicatable position, and NOTHING will be done. What most people lack is common sense. I think that one thing a good power plant or yoga can teach us is common sense.

I very much like your statement at the end of your last post, "What is the the purpose of human life on Earth?............."
We live in the garden of Eden, but we have messed up our nest. What are each of us doing to correct this? Hint: Working at the nuclear power plant with Homer Simpson is not going to help.

[sidecross]

I would agree with whitewave, and have found myself pondering my own participation in posting. Argument can be as addicting as any narcotic.

Has anyone noticed the similarity in sound and possible meaning of the two words "neurotic" and "narcotic"?

[dragonfly]

Originally posted by daniel:
We are meant to exist in balance with the Earth ... Daniel, I'm curious about how your ecological consciousness has affected your relationship with New York, a place where life is very much "out of balance." Were you as eco-conscious before you embarked on your self-initiation? If not, how has your new way of perceiving and being in the world changed the way you relate to the city?

I lived for a time in New York, in Williamsburg, as a grad student. I didn't have as developed an eco-consciousness then as I do now, but I was still freaked out by the ubiquitous environmental blight. I don't know that I could live there again (at least not without being in a constant state of rage).

[daniel]

dragonfly,

This may seem utterly hypocritical or self-contradictory, but my "eco-consciousness" hasn't really altered my lifestyle in NY. I don't drive a car and am generally a bit of a Luddite, but that is more my nature than due to a conscious ecological perspective. When you are caught in an avalanche, there is little point in building a snowball. I can't see the point in trying to conscientiously conserve some tiny amount of energy, while gigantic Hummers are powering up my block.

There are people who are great at implementing practical programs. I am not one of them.

I waver between two perspectives. Sometimes I think that imminent crises will lead to a massive consciousness shift after sudden wide-scale privations, and then a huge but somewhat logical progression from our current state.

Mostly, however, I think that the healing/transformation of the world is going to happen through a sudden break with the past and the achievement of a new "conscious structure" that will be radically different in its functioning. What we now consider "magical" or "miraculous" will become available to us, through conscious interaction with "Elemental Beings" or what the aboriginals call the Dreamtime Ancestors.

[Woodpecker]

(Totally off the subject (what was the subject? (these threads remind me of fractals (the way that their tips curl and open out into various worlds inside of worlds (hi whitewave, welcome back)))) but interesting: a manga version of Revelation: http://www.e-sheep.com/apocamon/)

[David Orange]

Originally posted by daniel:
"I don’t see many liberals/progressives offering programs of this type."

yes; but that is because they are operating in the professional domain of politics; as public servants...& since the u.s. (notwithstanding general boykin's views) is ostensibly not a theocracy, it's not the government's job or place to particularly encourage spiritual/conciousness development.

at the same time, i do see progressives as pushing forth ideas and laying the groundwork for situations in which this kind of thing is made more possible-- demanding protection of the environment to ensure that we will survive as a species, endeavoring to end the "war on drugs", protecting human rights and the dignity of all through everything from seeking better treatment for the mentally ill to attempting to ensure that all workers receive a living wage (... & i should remark that i do acknowledge and agree with your point that much, or even most, work is actually detrimental or at best, useless. ironically, it seems that the most detrimental work is carried out or at least masterminded by the most highly paid members of society).

...and i think that many progressives operating without political ambitions have worked towards establishing programs not far from those of the type that you are imagining-- here i'm thinking of those who institute programs teaching prisoners yoga and meditation; urban planners and architects whose work envisions a more human-scaled and psychologically healthy (& environmentally sound) physical landscape; ecologically-minded scientists and researchers who are working to preserve the diversity of the biosphere and consulting closely with indigenous peoples in order to learn from their wisdom regarding the living world around them...

and at the risk of sounding corny, i think that in our preoccupation with consciousness-expanding heroics, we may forget those, who, although they may not be keyed into the need for deep transformation of the type often discussed on this board, nevertheless in the process of their daily lives regularly contribute positive energy through simple acts of kindness and love -- i'm thinking of the store clerk who exhibits saintly patience in the presence of abusive customers, or the delivery person who always has a kind, heartfelt smile and greeting to share.

these people may be operating from a simple religious faith and belief that all people are god's creation and thus should be treated with kindness; they may have been brought up in families which taught them the value of treating their fellow earthlings with compassion; or they may have simply stumbled upon the truth somewhere in their own hearts...at any rate they are a refreshing breed apart from the type of folks that gelfer has had the misfortune of encountering while trying to set up a community. for whatever reason, spiritual/"new age" communities of all stripes seem to attract an inordinate number of some of the most narcissistic, unpleasant people that one has ever met. or perhaps it is the case that said people were down-to-earth at one time, but in the process of their spiritual adventures eventually become puffed up with their own nonsense.

"...the Tantric Left Hand path seeking self-deification (not "a risky business" but a psychic necessity for those called to it)..."

here i disagree; i think that it is most definitely a risky enterprise, when one considers the powerful psychic energies involved in such practices. it seems to me that it is hubris to think otherwise; that is one large reason why these traditions were historically kept secret and only transmitted orally within the context of a well-established teacher-student relationship.

[David Orange]

whitewave, sidecross,

i'm sorry if you folks are bummed by my and/or some others' posts here & view them merely as being some sort of intellectual pissing match (& a weak one, at that... ;) ). i admit to enjoying a good argument, and seeking validation and so forth... but i don't think that posts of that variety are entirely without merit. i think that they present a valid contribution to the discussion and, as buzz put it, the potluck of ideas here.

many or perhaps most of the posts on this board seem to be of an anecdotal nature-- which is great...it's wonderful to read reports springing directly from peoples' life experiences, and back-and-forth arguments can certainly grow tiresome. however, i think that when they are conducted in a respectful manner, they can be a good learning experience for the participants (even if you are never swayed an inch by someone else's position, you are forced clarify your own ideas through ruminating over them and attempting to articulate them for public consumption; as well, you're forced to thoughtfully consider others' perspectives in your own mind) & perhaps even make occasional good reading for the "spectators"...

[daniel]

Hi David,

The way I see it these days is as steps along the individuation process. The progressive perspective is clearly a step forward from the regressive fundamentalist perspective. But unless you change the system from the ground up, it is increasingly obvious that the progressive enterprises (while I recognize them as necessary and a good thing) do not go deep enough. Staving off ecological destruction is a good thing, of course, but creating a completely integrated and sustainable ecological economic system is work of another order.

If you accept the hypothesis that we are in "The Apocalypse," then I think the Jungian Edinger is correct, the psychic reality of the Apocalpyse is "the momentous event of the coming to self-realization of human consciousness." But the fulfillment of the individuation process paradoxically leads to a next step - what Gebser is trying to write about: "The presentiation of the Itself." The reintegration with "origin" or the spiritual as what emanates individual beings.

Gebser sees this as a clear evolutionary process: As the clan emerged from nature, as the individual emerged from the clan, now the individual reintegrates, consciously, with "origin." Gebser writes: "Time-freedom is the conscious form of archaic, original pre-temporality. "

David your comment again on the Left Hand Path: "here i disagree; i think that it is most definitely a risky enterprise, when one considers the powerful psychic energies involved in such practices."

Well, life itself is most definitely a risky business, as death clearly lies at the end of it. For those who pursue the Left Hand Path, they do so out of psychic necessity, and depending on their karma and personal requirements, will or will not find the teachers who can help them.

[David Orange]

i agree that the individation process is of paramount importance at this time. i just worry, and maybe you do, as well, that humanity (or most of humanity) isn't sufficiently mature enough yet...taking the bush regime as an example-- most of them psychologically still seem to be stuck in "the terrible twos". they are likely not the best representatives of humanity; but what would you say would be the psychological age of the majority of other people? teenaged, at best?...particularly in a culture and economic system which so worships youth...

[daniel]

I doubt you will agree with this but...

From my perspective, the level of "mass consciousness" is besides the point. Thinking about the masses throws us right back in the modern mental-rational structure, obsessed with sterile ideas of quantity and number. ("The Reign of Quantity" - Guenon)

What matters is that the minority who are the "evolving stem," do the work that needs to be done to fully initiate and transform themselves. Gurdjieff said: "200 fully conscious people can change the nature of all life on Earth." I suspect he might have a point. Unfortunately it is not so easy to become fully conscious! It may even be, as you say, a "risky business."

[David Orange]

Originally posted by daniel:
"("The Reign of Quantity" - Guenon)"

oh, that's where you got that phrase from. i thought that it maybe came from someone's criticism of gnp-based ideas of progress...guess i will look into gebser, as well, as i am unfamiliar with him and you have mentioned him a couple of times. based on you and someone else's mentioning him here, my curiosity has also been piqued re evola

"Gurdjieff said: "200 fully conscious people can change the nature of all life on Earth.""

hmmm...yeah... & i guess other people have said similar things. i imagine there is some truth in that sort of idea. i guess sheldrake's morphic resonance and other ideas may be seen as providing "scientific proof" or at least providing a theory to explain how this sort of thing operates. unfortunately i do not keep up with the literature closely enough to have a handle on how sheldrake's ideas are panning out or being accepted. i do recall reading somewhere that the "hundredth monkey" story is supposedly a myth...with no correspondence to reality... i'm just not sure. on an intuitive level, at least, sheldrake's ideas in this area have always (pardon the pun) resonated with me.

"I suspect he might have a point. Unfortunately it is not so easy to become fully conscious! It may even be, as you say, a "risky business"."

yeah, but your point is well taken...like the old joke about getting old, it's preferable to the alternative-- human extinction! ...i am not particularly crazy about gurdjieff, for a buncha reasons that i won't get into right now... but i do take very seriously his claim or idea that the human "experiment" occuring on earth right now has taken place many times before on different planets...and the success rate has not been overwhelming... :(

[daniel]

Orange on Gurdjieff: "i do take very seriously his claim or idea that the human "experiment" occuring on earth right now has taken place many times before on different planets...and the success rate has not been overwhelming... "

Right. Arguelles says the same. I have no basis for judgment, except I do feel optimistic that things will work out. I think the universe is a very harmonic and supple mechanism. However, they will only work out if those who understand the situation put their hearts and souls into making the changes in themselves and the world around them.

As I was told in a dream: "Abandon Abandonment!"

[dragonfly]

I thought of this thread the other day while listening to a new CD. Dave Grohl of Nirvana/Foo Fighters fame is putting out a new heavy metal project in February called Probot. Grohl wrote, played and recorded all the songs, then sent them off to about a dozen "legendary" underground metal singers to record vocals. My husband is one of the guest vocalists. Last week we got a copy of the unreleased CD, and while listening to it both of us were struck by the number of songs with environmental themes. Now, I've pretty much given up listening to rock music because it's just so much corporate-sponsored empty rebellion, but I must say this particular recording made me feel rather hopeful. I do think there is still an element of the genuinely shamanic to be found in rock, but mainly in the underground varieties and not the big commercial productions. Of course, this particular recording will be released not by one of the big music giants but by an obscure metal label.

[OSWorker]

....yeah -- i agree, people are basically getting sick of the same old rock/hip-hop/r&b bullsh*t:evil: ..... and there is just this big upsurge from a new style coming out of Europe:D -- best place i've found it so far is a compilation series called 'euro club hits' on itunes:) -- or check this link: :D

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZSearch.woa/wa/advancedSearchResults?albumTerm=Euro+Club+Hits+Vol +