Paolo Caliari (Veronese) – Christ and the Centurion, ca. 1575
Paolo Caliari (Veronese) – Christ and the Centurion, ca. 1575
Whereas many Americans surf the Internet and read about the drawn out conclusion to the geopolitical situation in Syria—semi-satisfied with a confrontation between Russian and Americans troops against the Islamic State (Daesh), as well as conjecture about a brokered Iranian nuclear program which evokes an adamant response by The State of Israel about its very existence—other Americans prefer to stay involved with domestic affairs—as if there is no escape, and we must, instead, revert to reading about the violence perpetrated by some lone gunmen back home.
Some Americans, of course, do both. They ask themselves: Where’s the violence, that’s where I’ll go. Where there is the blood? That’s where I want to be. Injustice. Where is the suffering and anguish, physical danger? I want to know all about it.
The Neurology of Skull Storms
At a friend’s dorm room, posturing, with a smirk, and said something obscure like “The speed of thought is faster than the speed of light; that’s why we’re comprised of skull-storms.”
Now that scientists have detected gravitational waves in the universe, we say we travel at the speed of memory and hope, and that where there is mass, we can slow down to a state of rotational inertia.
What if two black holes, like the orbitals of our eyes, side by side, yet numerically distinct, are actually two portals in space-time, to the edge of the expanding universe, and the other actually is an montonmous continuum that reverts back all creation back to the singularity of the Big Bang?
If that is the case, a storm of thought as found in the cerebral cortex of one (1) sentient creature in the universe is enough to the power all the light and life that exists in all beings.
Because the storm of the mind of God that travels faster than the stars, either dying or being born, becomes a cosmological constant. And that storm’s power is not only governed by the laws of physics, but by a chaotic freedom that is constructive—which forms planets, vibrations, stars at will, and does not hesitate to become an abyss turned inside out: a servant to eternity, a messenger that replicates all other sets and parameters of sets, a universal subjectivity, a permanent student of the loneliness of God
I need to know the answers to understand he neuroscience of epilepsy and the phenomena of a lightning strike. How are the two similar? And what is the ionic equivalency between speed of electricity in the human mind a lightning strike during a lightning storm? After an epileptic seizure is there an electrical repositioning in the limbic system comparable to the rumbling of thunder following a lightning strike in Nature?
I also need to know the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) and the electrical power (in joules) of a bipolar, schizoaffective and schizophrenic patient and how the limbic systems in each patient facilitates the construction of new memories and represses traumatic events.
I also want to learn about how much overall voltage that a brain can withstand; that is, the precision, or range of frequencies that perceptible to the human ear as opposed to other species, the electromagnetic fields that bring together the brainstem and the frontal cortex, the quanta causal sequences of higher order cognitive faculties such as Reason and Understanding. Why do numbers exist in time but not in space?
Statistically speaking, what are the number of neutrinos, muons and/or quarks that can pass through an neural synapse, in a parallelism with the same number of neutrinos, muons and/or quarks that travel through the earth as it spins on its axis?
How much voltage exists outside a cancer cell in proportion to the how much voltage exists inside a cancer cell.
Why are schizophrenia and blindness never co-existent?
If matter cannot be created or destroyed, why can thought?
If we infer causal, X to Y, relationships to all phenomena, as David Hume suggests, then how much doubt can we put on the Heisenberg Principle?
If light is wave and a particle at the same time, then why do thoughts carry multiple pieces of information in the mind’s eye and we synthesize them, rather than regress into a reflective mode of consciousness that can be characterized as a stupor or, better yet a disorientation of senses?
Why are there no receptors for alcohol in the brain? And how do light and lasers affect the amygdala of an alcoholic’s brain?
If adrenal glands are snipped, what is the purpose of the death wish?
How does perfect pitch occur for a person gifted with musical abilities?
Does that pitch reside in memory or in understanding?
What is the quantifiable evidence for human freedom?
Why is the 2nd law of thermodynamics taught to us, when perpetual motion machines and Quantum effect generators are popping up and working without the aid of fossil fuels, water, AC or DC power?
What is the effect of gravity on irrational and rational beliefs?
How does sanism affect the present scientific paradigm and how does this sanism prevent epiphenomenal modes of thought from being known to the laymen and the public?
Who determines and why must one be determined as rational to be considered fully functional, while a person with depression is viewed as a deviant that must be cured?
What is the effect of light on the human tongue?
What is the relationship between height, gravity and brain mass?
If we are wired for “a sense of the sacred,” how to atheists have spiritual experiences?
What does an electroencephalogram (EEG) show us about bipolar patients who do not take medication? Do the slopes of the waves suggest that such patients are perceiving something other than what is apprehended by the 5 senses?
What are the consequences of staying in psychosis ad infinitum?
How much light exists in the brain, given that the occipital lobe refracts the external world, and takes a picture of it upside down, so that we can see it in our imagination, even when the image that we see it gone?
Now that gravitational waves have been detected, what is the best way for an observer to measure them without interfering in the results?
What was the luminosity of the 1 nanosecond of the Big Bang? And what is the mass of the universe without all the stars, that is, only planets, but now stars?
Why ~33% of the universe comprised of some kind of matter while 99% is of an atom is actually nothing? To put in another way: Why is the Void so vast, while nuclear bonds are so strong particular where there is gravity, and there is plasma where gravity is actually absent?
How does Zero Point Energy fuel the expansion of the universe?
In other worlds how much has the temperature of the universe changed since its inception, and at what intervals, or spurts in the expansion created the spiral galaxies as opposed to star systems that did not need much gravitational pull to retain its orbits and its general composure?
What is the oldest moon in the universe? Have we located it; if so, how did it form?
Why do we know more about the far reaches of outer space than the ocean?
Why does Kepler surpass Newtown in judging the stellar formation and the biochemical composition of a supernova, without having to rely on electromagnetic determinations to sense the narrowing or implosion of a giant star?
If matter cannot be created or destroyed, why can thought be created or destroyed?
Plato’s Academy, Charlemagne, and the Origins of a Classical Education
People credit Plato with the creation of the Academy, hence the term “academia,” yet it wasn’t until Charlemagne of Holy Roman Empire ordered the Charter of Modern Thought, issued in 787, that the notion of a classical education was conceived.
This classical education was comprised of the trivium — grammar, logic, and rhetoric (the lower division of the lower liberal arts) —and the quadrivium — arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy.
The 7 liberals arts were considered knowledge acquired by thinking skills acquired by the five senses as opposed to the practical arts, i.e. medicine and architecture. In 8th century Europe, after quadrivium one gets “Masters of Arts degree,” preparing one to more rigorous study philosophy and theology.
It was after the MA degree, that student could attempt to get a Bachelor’s degrees of the higher faculties (Theology, Medicine or Law).
When we say one has acquired a “classical education”one has mastered the 7 liberal arts, namely has adopted Neo-Platonism, which was the first anti-Christian stance (or if you like critique of Christianity, hence the most primordial foundation for later secular humanism born from Luther’s P.R.). Martianus Capella was one of main curriculum constructors for “the Eurocentric mind” in the context of the history of education. He wrote a seminal work called De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (“On the Marriage of Philology and Mercury”), sometimes called De septem disciplinis (“On the seven disciplines”) or the Satyricon, which incidentally is the name of a Fellini film.
It’s crazy how far we have come from Plato’s Academy to the classical ideals promoted by and to the monks of Carolingian Renaissance to the Middle Age Renaissance, to the Italian Renaissance to finally Kant at the end of the French Revolution. If you want to really know “what” knowledge is and what it’s for, let alone what it can and cannot do, at least for our modernity, than I say instead of community college, there should be Kantian schools or Kantian public spaces where you leap over the “liberal arts/classical education” and get to the CORE of what constitutes knowledge, what freedom is, what the faculties of Reason are, as well as an the acquisition of a critical stance (that is, Kantian because our freedom of thought and expression are coextensive with the self, which Michel Foucault considered the primary factor as to why such a stance is “a permanent critique of our era,” (namely, the one that many like to give an appellation, i.e. a post-this-or that, when it reality is simply epistemic reorganization or change in the historical a priori conditions of an idea, whether it exists in the liberal arts or the sciences.
Plato, in his work, Timaeus, as well as Homer’s Iliad, and the Torah, make it abundantly clear that Western Civilization is the intersection between Egyptian, Minoan and Hebraic (Canaanite) civilizations
IMPORTANT TERMS: John Hale’s The Civilization of Europe of Europe in the Renaissance
—Abraham Ortelius (1527-1598): in 1570 became the father of the modern atlas by issuing the world’s first regularly produced atlas, the Theatrum orbis terrarum (Theatre of the world). Combined maps of uniform size and style with comprehensive text. Theatrum setting the standard for the shape and contents of future atlases. credited the original cartographers.
—Martin Waldsemuller: 1470?–1522?, German cosmographer.. He was the first cartographer to call the New World America. He sketched the New World in two maps (the first to show North and South America separate from Asia) that he published in 1507 together with an explanatory treatise, Cosmographiae introductio, and Amerigo Vespucci’s account of his voyages to the New World. Based on the Greek geography of Ptolmey, read of Vespucci’s travels and knew that the New World was indeed two continents. In honor of Vespucci’s discovery of the new forth portion of the world, Waldseemüller printed a wood block map (called “Carta Mariana”) with the name “America” spread across the southern continent of the New World. Waldseemüller printed and sold a thousand copies of the map across Europe.
—Strabo: wrote some two thousand years ago in the early days of the Roman Empire. In his Geography, he provides verbal description of the ‘Inhabited World’, as envisaged at that time. Writing in Greek, covering a world dominated by Rom-e–description of the geo-political landscape under the first two Roman emperors, Augustus and Tiberius. Strabo’s subject-matter of the physical, astronomical and geographical concepts of antiquity, etc.
(1519–58) and, as Charles I, king of Spain (1516–56); son of Philip I and Joanna of Castile, grandson of Ferdinand II of Aragón, Isabella of Castile, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, and Mary of Burgundy. Spanish Empire was tremendously expanded in the New World. In Italy, Spanish power had become paramount. Even England seemed about to fall to Spain through Philip’s marriage, and Charles’s own marriage with Isabella of Portugal brought the Portuguese crown to Philip in 1580. Failed in his purpose to return the Protestants to the Roman Catholic Church, and the human and financial cost of constant warfare drained Spanish resources; moreover, Charles’s hopes for a universal empire was thwarted by the political realities of Western Europe.
—1453: Fall of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire.
COPYRIGHT © Paul Rogov 2016
Our Contemporary Moment Weighed Against the Feather of Truth
“The young man,” wrote Aristotle, “is not fit for Moral Philosophy, for he has no experience in the actions of life.”
That Aristotle, as many know, tutored Alexander the Great for five years from 356- 343 B.C.E, when the future king was aged 13.
The quotation is an enigma: what does Aristotle mean by “youth?” Aristotle does not seem to be implying that the issue is not so much biological youth as much as it is the absence of wisdom (at least that’s how it goes according to Grint, K. (2007) on the subject of leadership, in an article he wrote entitled “Learning to Lead: Can Aristotle Help Us Find the Road to Wisdom?”
Okay, now, I admit it: I hate it when educated people who may have not read Aristotle’s work completely, cherry-pick some of his quotes with the intent of convincing the reader or listener that they are cultured or intelligent. Many people, however learned as they are, certainly might have skimmed through some of Aristotle’s books and certainly wanted to be a member of a group that is “in the know,” who might even be in the know (having learned that the message of Aristotle as many come to learn), later. His approach is rooted firmly in a sometimes overtly clear, though always elaborate system of metaphysics; so obvious are Aristotle’s insights to many people and (often surprisingly) so boring are Aristotle’s arguments, so many believe they “ring true” too much. And what happens? Aristotle becomes reduced and cast aside simply because he arrived at conclusions that we, as moderns, can easily just find on Google or in a book on topology.
I appreciate Aristotle and yet, long before the Devil was down in Georgia galvanizing populist enthusiasm by playing a fiddle, it was, in fact, Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, that condemned the irrational part of human nature. Plato downright hated anything irrational and viewed it is as the source of error, which was contrary to Truth. He condemned all mimetic art (epic poetry, painting, etc) as a copy of a copy of an idea—-an idea for him, in fact, is the actual true, intangible ontological fact that must be contended with and/or accepted as real and actual within the terms of our understanding and reason. Basically, for Plato, art—-because it is is “art”-ificial by definition (and might appear or present itself as truth to those who lack experience and/or wisdom, art is merely a copy of a copy of an idea, and not the idea itself, therefore is, by default, further and further away from the actual Truth.
Some contemporary philosopher recently joked that if poets rule the world then genocide would increase. Check out Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath and Walt Whitman and William Butler Yeats: what were they trying to do? Comfort us? Make us love ourselves beyond measure, play to our reptilian brains, then meander off into a grassy field where there are graves and bodies so that they, as poets, can graft their stanzas to the monstrosity of God’s personal eternity?
Plato hated poets for many specific reasons, as he writes, in Book X of The Republic. In Book X he admits that human beings, whatever they are like when they are young or now or later in years, when they are inexperienced or not, are impressionable beings; they influence one another. He did not want a poem (so innocent that it might appear) to lie or to mislead youth, so that the youth is then falsely informed about what is real and what is not—-affected by the illusion of the primacy of beauty over ethics. Plato did not want a poem’s “truthiness” (even if written well, in daclytic hexameter) to surpass the quest for Truth.
So then why is rationality so important and art such bullshit to so many people in the world? I will provide a theory.
I find it strange that an entire civilization—the Ancient Greeks––(from the Pre-Socratics to the Sophists to the Stoics and Neo-Platonists, all of who were instrumental in helping us learn how to tend the garden of Western thought (even as many ancient philosophers are often misunderstood by popular obscurantists who are, more often than not, writing in German) were such slaves to the mystique of Truth that they had to elevate Rationality and Reason far above the prospect of their own liberty. They valued Reason and Understanding and Argument over their own liberty. Why? We can only guess, but they certainly had no conception of freedom (as we have come to understand it…for freedom comes later, at the end of the Age of the Enlightenment with Kant et al). In short, why did a people who valued Reason over liberty, in turn, hold such a negative view of the senses and of the irrational? They held such a fear of the irrational so much so one might even conclude that they hated the body at some level (even though they constructed many statues depicting it), yet ultimately, in their written work, saw the human body as corruptible, therefore they could not trust enough to give them insight into any knowledge that could constitute truths or Truth.
But back to the irrational…and the fear of the irrational. Do we not have that today? Who are all these “experts” who privilege reason and rationality over un-reason and insanity? Have these people ever read a good novel?
Any good novel interrogates the tension between freedom and confinement, between an individual living in an irrational world, which is often in concert with the choices made by a world that, like a machine, is all too rational.
More on the irrational, though.
Many Ancient Greek mathematicians, as is well known, often fled from the prospective appearance of irrational numbers while doing mathematics, which were produced by dividing a number by zero. So what happened there? Were dirty Greek togas in dire need of being laundered? Why did, in fact, did the Ancient Greeks (who had so many great teachers and philosophers) consult an fucking oracle before waging a war or making a big political decision, even though the educated class, the philosophers (who were all practically atheists and agnostics)? It is worth remembering that the Ancient Greeks kept theological frameworks in their intellectual discussions in order to accommodate the biggest questions in philosophy. Only in this way is all of existence on the table: so that one can ask and have access to an entire ontology of a Divinity, in order to better describe the hypothetical origin and fate of the universe, as well as the political reality of the power of the state.
But seriously, “folks” (Obama’s favorite way of addressing Joe Blow middle-class Americans): How many Ancient Greek slaves were actually starving and being beaten while let’s say, two men from Ptolemaic Alexandria discussed what human beings want? What did they talk about? They talked about an ideal world without troubles, where pleasures abound and are easily acquired, in that utopia acceptable….so goes Socrates (through Platonic dialogues).
Welcome to the City of Pigs, then, O Brave New World, capital of Human Desire. (You will not turn into a donkey here; you will be given access to websites and will win and win and win).
Every man and woman has a Jerusalem and a New York, a Las Vegas and a Calcutta in their bloodstream and their bone marrow—this much I believe.
And yet from what I gather, from doing my homework, the Ancient Greeks were bona fide, oxymoronic posers. They wanted to be the Egyptians instead of themselves as if they hated themselves. The Greeks only wished they were as hardworking, mystical, sexy, and irrational as the Egyptians. They only wished they knew the secrets to the stars. The Ancient Greeks, in fact, loved almost everything about the Egyptians and what they did, it was as if the Greeks, were in some ways (to the Egyptians) their first retarded cousins (to speak nothing of cultural incest, nor the retroactive prospects of Christian ethics). Find me one place in an Ancient Greek text where a scholar or scribe painted the Egyptians as useless or advised the reader to not adore them (except the Bible). This fact alone presents its own set of questions regarding what the true roots of Western civilization are.
So now, then, dear readers, I will leave it at this: I don’t blame the Ancient Greeks for their admiration of the Ancient Egyptians; I blame the American people for their admiration of a democracy that never existed. The American people are being mislead by misreading history books. What good is our society if what we call good is called democracy and we don’t experience, nor witness anything like a democracy. I am not touching French thought right now, pace, Descartes, probably the father of psychology, but Western Civilization has given humanity the Law as well as a bunch of statues and paintings, trinkets, jewelry, nukes, guns, medicines, and a whole lot of exploitation of women and children. Western Civilization has perfected the art of slavery, human subjugation, and perfected the art of genocide of entire populations with smirks, taunts, denials, and philosophical justifications to excuse the behavior as if it wasn’t real.
And for all those Greens out there, searching for the harnessing of the Zero-Point Energy? Are we, as eco-friendly moderns, aware that the Ancient Egyptians addressed Nature in the second-person (as a “You” and not as an “It”)? Are we Google-savvy, pill-popping masters of our own realities aware that it was the Ancient Egyptians that had such a rich spiritual lens/theology as part of their daily lives (with gods and principalities overseeing even most banal of phenomena like the bending of a reed in the wind), that their intellectual adventures were wholly poetic at all times of the day and all times of the night?
Walk towards the light, 21st century poets. Walk towards the secret of poetry. You, too, have been affected and have lost touch with the world in which you live.
This is what I propose that the 21st century poet needs today: he or she needs to be reminded of how ancient man and woman and his or her poetic sensibilities were identical, if not inextricably entwined with every aspect of their lives. For this reason, I am a firm proponent that any person that professes to be a poet in the 21st century have the mind-set of Ancient Egyptian and should become more intertwined, if not in constant dialogue with Beauty and with the meaning of why one writes poetry itself.
I believe that reconnecting to the Ancient Egyptians in some of their ways of being in the world makes a lot more sense than applying to, or god-forbid. attending a Master of Fine Arts program in Poetry at a university.
The once illiterate men and women of the world were once subservient to kings, then said “fuck that shit,” and ran away, and became fully literate, and began to speak, and write in the vernacular, and understood the “democratization of the afterlife,” and they soon became the auto-didatic polymaths that their gods always wanted them to be.
But many poets of the 21 century do not have wherewithal to believe in anything positive , nucleically bonded and necessarily true.
I am of the opinion that without some understanding of the esoteric tradition, that of an Egyptian Moses, say, or Summerian Innana, poets cannot even proceed to write anything good, let alone be passionate about a self, debauchery, escapism, sex and their detailed descriptions of their hangovers and/or prison sentences. Demystifying all, poets of the 21 century will simply keep singing of themselves like Whitman, thwarting government agendas like Mayakovksy for the sake of appearing important, or worse: repeating the sentimental drivel of the Romantics, replete with a disingenuous kindness to Mother Nature, but without the great smashing hit that can only be produced by a hand-written letter to one’s true love right before a hot bathtub for a Roman suicide.
But no, sweetest of friends—-what we get these days is rehashed, third-rate faux-Apollonian verse written on Facebook, which is so Oedipal and Eurocentric and dickless and sentimental and dripping in Bukowski’s bowel movements and Cinnamon Toast Crunch, that it should come as no surprise to the New York literati that if the Ancient Egyptians were here with us, they would themselves would disapprove of the content of what the New York literati consider to be poems and, moreover, they would tell some up-and-coming poetaster’s ba to fly away as a flustered bird, while their name (their legacy) attempts to find a home.
Let the former aspect of human nature (the ba) perch on a tombstone only to balk at the mourner.
Let the latter (the human name) be so well-preserved, that any perfect poem written on papyrus or not on the part of a 21st century poet, that sits openly before the god Osiris as he sits before the Scales of Divine Judgement, shows how the content and/or meaning and/or stakes of the 21st century poem weights as much (that is, is equal) to the Feather of Truth, thereby granting the 21 century poet entrance into a world that has ceased to fear death or even know death: A world much like ours, but without the copy-paste features of MS Word, Facebook, Twitter, and the electronic mice we use to move the screens we watch—that and/or with remote control.
The Pagan Substrata of a Monotheistic Mind
Before any Palestinian/Israeli conflict, Jews, Christians, Muslims co-existed and were bound by the spice trade, commerce—-and Mecca was a link between Constantinople and India. As travelers, Jews and Christians from the Byzantine Empire told stories of their beliefs to pagan Arabs. They shared not only goods, but had dialogues with each other about other “goods,” namely about the nature of God and the nature of the universe.
There is a pagan substrata to the idea of One God. It is no accident, aside from Ancient Egypt’s contribution to the idea, that the belief in one God was a symptom of socio-economic necessity.
Allow me to motivate the idea that the pyramids are the least interesting aspect of Ancient Egypt. After all, the Great Pyramid of Giza has no writing in it, which suggests the IVth Dynasty is the last place to look for understanding Egyptian culture. (However, there are the other pyramids, which do have a lot of writing in them, which later went on to inspire the content of the Coffin texts).
So when did things change? How did monotheism sprout from the fertile pagan mind? The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt is far different than the earlier Dynasties. I think once the cult of Ra, Osiris, Thoth, spread through Kemet (as Egypt was called then), the quality of life improved for the average slave. Each city had its own local deity. There were a pantheon of gods, yet with a higher concentration of people per capita, there were more wars, more words exchanged, more immigration and travels beyond what is known as the Levant (just East of the Sinai Peninsula, where now Israelis and Palestinians live). The more insight the Ancient Egyptians had to their life-world, the more sophisticated their theologies; as the Nile River flooded and receded every year, they came to a belief in resurrection, renewal, return.
Because of a belief in an afterlife (Ancient Egypt being the first civilization to have such a belief) the artistry of sculptures became more refined. Then there were the temples. I think the temples after the rise of the empire—after Ahmose’s reign, were the most breath-taking. As far as XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties, things, of course, changed politically on account of the nuanced beliefs about the relationship between the Pharaoh and the gods, not to mention Pharaoh’s relationship to the priesthood of Amun and later the Divine Adortrice (the High Priestess).
Ancient Egypt, during the Middle Kingdom, after what is called the “democratization of the afterlife,” which became applicable to not only kings, but any Egyptian—-when the belief was fortified—there was even a place to write one’s own name on the cover of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which was read widely throughout Kem (along with the Book of Gates).
By the time Alexander the Great and the Greco-Roman influence penetrated Egypt, it had already had a complex theology as it progressed throughout the millennia. A reed in the wind had deity for it. A breath did, too. Every phenomena that could and would take place. A kiss. The scent of leeks. The sand powder in one’s hands. Holidays and festivals became more and more spectacular—so much so that the entire country participated in them. This was much different, I think, from the enclosed pristine political structure of the earlier dynasties.
It was the Pharaoh Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) that “created” monotheism, the belief in one God.
This took place over the course of 17 years of his reign, which ended in 1336 BC or 1334 BC.
No longer can we blame Europeans exclusively forcing an universalist religion onto people. Pharaoh Ahkenaton not only persecuted cults that paid homage to regional gods and literally enforced the belief in the sun, a god named “Aten”, the Sun-Disk, as being the source of all energy and life, it was the famous psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud in his book Moses and Monotheism who conjectured that Akhenaton, in the XVIII Dynasty, was actually Moses, for as in the biblical account Moses was a Jew and an Egyptian and brought the Hebrews back to the belief in Yahweh. Freud’s theory, however, was sharply criticized by many scholars, is not is not rooted in fact; however, I do find Freud’s theory to have some aesthetic value.
Regardless of what Freud said, monotheism was born out the womb of polytheism and paganism. Gods became pitted against gods. A monotheist would say they believed in one God. Yet another monotheist with a different theology would also say they believe in one God. The problem is that the argument that One God exists was put to the test in Mecca and on the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. Abrahamic god versus Abrahamic god. Judaic theology vs. Christian theology. Christian theology vs. Arab pagan theology. Judaism vs. Arab pagan theology. Then eventually Judaic and Christian theology vs. versus Islamic theology, which later itself splintered into many sites of contention. So, what’s the issue there?
The issue is that arguments over proper doctrine is a regression into polytheism, in fact. It reduces the belief in one God and pits one against the one God of another. This dynamic holds true to this day: when people argue about religion, they are really arguing about theology, the study of the existence of God and God’s nature. The dynamic repeats, again, because each Abrahamic culture—Jew, Christian, Muslim—fallaciously start arguing as if they are talking about three deities, to each their own, which is contentious and can bring about conflict not only in the area of debate, but in the marketplace and war, wherein religion is often used as a justification in spite the fact that all major wars were really not about religion or the imperial conquest. They were about identity. Depending on who one is, by birth, or by choice—this determines the side one is on during a military conflict.
I was asked once what the best period in Ancient Egypt was. I thought about it. The problem in answering the question of “what the best period of Ancient Egypt”, of course, is difficult is because it’s subjective. I said I liked the Middle Kingdom because it was the golden age of Egyptian literature. Still though, the theology of the Ancient Egyptians—Europe being the intersection of Greek, Roman, Judeo-Christian culture—differs from the social history of Islam. This cannot be overemphasized or overlooked.
There are too many artifacts, political intrigues, wars, treatises, invasions, and social factors to make sense of to make blanket statements about which religion was right and best. The notion of “the Truth,” is not a modern term, yet what one really means is that one’s God is real and that aside from that Truth, there is no comparable deity.
So the circular logic of paganism returns with guile and with premises that have nothing to do with the character of a particular believer, but have to do with way in which we frame the talk of God.
Case in point: the Bible
The reason believers and non-believers disagree is not simply because the first party believes that Scripture is “the Word of God” and the second party does not.
The (shocking) chasm between the parties is based on two different theories about what constitutes knowledge. “he difference of position in what one means when someone says that something is “true.”
Some people adopt a he correspondence of theory of truth, which basically states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) it.
There is a historicity to the production of all books just as much as there is a history to this pencil—that goes back to a date long before the pencil was even forged, before the pencil was branded and jammed with lead, that is, a long time before, when, indeed, the pencil was not yet a chosen material substance, with even potentiality to be pencil, when the pencil was still within a tree, and within a forest, and within a forest that was comprised of many tress.
Many well-meaning pastors cite Corinthians 13:33 so reinforce the idea that “God is not the author of confusion ” Yet still, many Christians remain confused. Did the Apostle Paul [credited by many of today’s theologians and even historians of Early Christianity as bearer of the “Good News” (or Gospel) of fledgling Near Eastern sect’s beliefs from Antioch to the Greco-Roman civilization) quote Christ’s sayings even once in his epistles? According to Scripture Christ himself said: “the one who does not love me, does not keep my words. The words that you’re hearing me say are not mine, but come from the Father who sent me.” (John 14:24), “Everyone who keeps on hearing these messages of mine and never puts them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand (Matt 7:26).
Are Paul’s letters (comprised of the New Testament’s theology, that is, as a gospel of grace as well as a gospel of cosmological debts, divine blood and salvation), different from the message of Christ? Yes. As a Christian whose message should one accept? The message of a Messiah.? Or the message of a Roman murderer, who persecuted Christians, argued with the original apostles, who never walked with Christ, who writes about the will of God’s will and about what God has not become, since Christ has come and gone, based on his erudition as a Pharisee?
The Christ, the Son of Man, Yashua, the son of Mary was from Judea; so were the disciples. Paul was from Tarsus, the place where Antony met Cleopatra, the same city in the Greco-Roman, which worshiped Herakles, a dying savior-god. One must give the Apostle Paul all the credit and not the Church Fathers for the Gospel we have today for giving the gentiles a multicultural crash-course in the Torah and preaching a theology totally foreign to Christ who said: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel.” (Matt, 15:24).
Christianity became very creative and very political after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. There were many forms of Christianity then (just as there are now); messianic hopes and conjectures; messianic disappointments; rethinking of the pagan culture the Empire for the Jews who refused to fully submit to the Romans–all of that existed, yet, that confusion is the sociological context for the writing of the “Gospels” by the Early Christians who wrote the Septuagint (the Greek New Testament)
“The Gospel According to Mark” was the first one written in (68–73 C.E, probably in Rome because of the direct mention of the destruction of the Temple); “The Gospel According to Matthew,” obsessed with bloodlines/ genealogies was written in 80–85 C.E, probably in Syria; “The Gospel According to Luke, was written approximately between 80-85 C.E; “The Gospel of John, (the most Jewish of the Gospels, was written betwen 900-100 C.E., probably in Ephesus).
These texts were anonymous until around 180 C.E. Then, all of a sudden, parchments get the name of an author for each of 4 Gospel (The Gospel According to _________ etc.) Who was the guy that said “no more gospel accounts, only these four?” Irenaeus of Lyons.
Irenaeus of Lyons documented the problem of having too many gospels in great detail in his book called Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies). This book ridiculed many versions of Christanity, particularly the Gnostics.
Ireaneus of Lyons’ scathing, systematic critique on the multitudes upon multitudes of Greco-Roman heresies was writing of a cultural-theological cult from the world-view of the Aramaic-speaking Christ, who was a Jew, who walked in Judea, who healed the sick, who cast out demons, who spoke in parables, who started an uprising in Jerusalem during a Pesach, who was betrayed, who was given over to the Roman authorities, who was sentenced to death under Pontius Pilate: to die on the cross for sedition.
The current Bible is one the cornerstones of Western Civilization; yet, it was had been stripped of its Near Eastern roots. It was Greco-Romanized.
If one wants to know who, where, and when and how the Bible was edited, one has to accept that the editing resides in its very construction.There is ample historical documentation for what the Bible was really supposed to be about before the various theological debates of the first 400 years of Christianity (what a mess!) and what the Early Church Fathers concluded during the Ecunemical Councils (Council of Nicea, Council of Rome, etc).
It was Pope Damasus who made the “Damasine list,” which is our current New Testament.
For those who love the account of Jesus saving the woman caught in adultery, Mark 16.9-20, ((Pericope de Adultera) should know the account of where Christ says “he without sin let him cast the first stone” and “Go home and sin no more” was absent from the best and earliest Greek manuscripts of “The Gospel According to “John”. In fact, the passage is absent from all the original Gospels. They were not even present int the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, though were found in the Latin-Green manuscript, Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century.
My point is simple (and I do no wish to bombard you with any further minutia): The New Testement is comprised of Four Gospels and those Gospels are the ones that hold the sayings of Christ. These are the Scriptures that contain anything remotely close to the “word of God.”
Because they hold Jesus sayings and Christ himself said that those who do not know his sayings cannot possibly understand who is was, what he was, and what the “Good News” was. The Gospel, “the Good News” is not found in the anything beyond the Four Gospels by definition.
It was Origen who lived between 185-254 A.D. who held the view that the four gospels alone are undeniably authentic in the church of God on earth.
Upon this foundation, we can then argue that: when Mohammed speaks of Christ of the Gospels in the Quran, he is not referring to the Epistles of Paul (other parts of the New Testament). Most Islamic scholars in fact reject the Apostle Paul; because for them the “Good News,” or Gospel (for that’s what it means) is what Christ taught, in the context of DEEN, which is what Muslims call “the way of religious life.”
Even if Mohammed mentioned the word “Gospel” thirty times in the Quran, it cannot and does not refer to the theology of the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. The Quran contradicts most of what Apostle Paul preached, which is the Christianity of today, even in the 1000 forms of Christianity that exist right now or are forming right now, as a result people continually adding more to the Gospel message than is necessary. If one wants to be a Muslim and rip on the Apostle Paul all day and night (for “bad theology”), or if one wants to a Christian to follow and keep Christ’s words, or if one wants to be an Orthodox Jewish and not get caught up in the often circular and senseless debates about the nature or identity of the Messiah, then may God Bless all of you for trying to come to God through knowledge alone.
Faith loses its mystique when it equates to or is trumped by knowledge. When a person (who thinks they are “saved” or will be granted “salvation”: based on the criteria of the Apostle Paul or a pastor who preaches what Paul preaches, that is not the same as keeping the saying of Christ, which are found in the Gospel (or “Good News” and not in the Epistles of the New Testament.
Now Revelation—that’s a entirely different subject: it is a linguistic mosaic seeped in both pagan and Jewish symbolism. I will get to that subject soon enough, but now you’ll just have contend with my modest thesis that for Islam, the Four Gospels are not the New Testament as a whole, but the message of Christ alone and for this reason there is so much confusion.
I did not even mention the social history of Islam, nor the social history of Christianity. I just stuck to the text. And guess what? For many, the text is good enough. It could also bring on an unpleasant symptom that a social worker or a psychotherapist or a school psychiatrist would foster in accord with the socio-political awareness of one’s own predicament, wherein one learns of how social and existential intelligence works.
Although we are not the Greeks or the Romans of Antiquity, who are said to have lived in a concerted perpetual awe of everything they perceived about themselves in the world, when the final Ptolemaic dynasty was destroyed by Octavian’s forces against his brother, Marc Anthony with his Egyptian lover, Cleopatra, at the Battle of Actium in 31 B..C a new lesson about beliefs came to the fore: three civilization can co-exist in Ptolemaic Egypt, but due to the foolishness of two monarchies,’ of two different civilization, both of whose populations were so well-equipped in that they overlap in paving the way to Rome to continue to battle the Eastern Roman Empire at Constantinople, which later became the capital of the Holy Church (all the while the West Empire was decaying and whose over-stretched borders lent itself to foreign invasions).
Us moderns in the U.S. know little about how belief about death shapes one’s relationship to it, but such beliefs are only carefully sought out by freelance scholars. Compassion for the stranger, for the immigrant, for the Other, the Neighbor is readily locked in with a web of fear. At some point, one just shrugs, suggesting that when we do identify with Roman culture, because we were bending in submission to the objective violence around us, as we are kidding ourselves.It is as if we think we are not still living somewhat in the murk the Bronze Age with Cleopatra , Marc Antony and Octavian, forming a love triangle that covers over many political obsession with the apocalyptic mind, which is found in ISIL, as well as in evangelicals in the U.K. and the U.S.
Not ready for war? All will be well, right? Nothing to be afraid of, right?
Evidence based research demonstrates and that for a human being to resolve the anomalies of being a young person today are perpetually re-incorporated into the entire society’s cultural endeavors. A teenage heart breaks while we blow stuff up at Universal Studios. We spend so much time on entertainment, we have to entertain ourselves in between entertaining ourselves.
The GOP and the Democrats, no matter how old or how young, hypocritically, glorify gun violence by accepting it as a necessary requirement of the script of an action film while we, those who hope to untie some sloppy thinking about the current status update of the U.S. on Facebook, which prompts us to watch a remastered version of Bambi on Blu-Ray now—because somewhere in that mix there is sense that our technological progress is, quite possibly, inversely proportional to our moral progress, and that if do not recapitulate and come to grips with why that is, we ourselves would become slaves to our own sorrow and serfs to own cybermonasticism, which lets us to believe in the digital world will help us find solace, just because maybe, we have heaven at our fingertips.
The buying of a smooth, pink, shiny self-help book that directs the reader to escape to “cities in the interior (pace Anaïs Nin) expounds in lofty agreements and in downwardtending disagreements with others about how our precious problems, which we all have, which we all wished could be whisked away like Persephone from Hades. Problems are only temporary, and the only moments that truly keep us on track, is in knowing when to pause.
Suicidal or homicidal people must be heard so that we can alleviate an interior pain, a festering drainage of wormhole cause by watching violence, at calculated distances, with a remote, or with the shift in the direction of the face, which lets people perfect distance itself, which is just as important as retaining integrity, keepings one’s word, and understanding, by analogy, that the reader, along with all other members of the same species, should not be burnt out, degraded, nor tired of being alive just because one has a nostalgia for one’s lover, which has infested the fissures of the brain, and produced the neural pathways that do not have car pool lane: so alone is the survivor he or she might turn into an literal opiate of the masses, as they click on the television yet again and watch an uncanny fragile, though robust mind appear to us in an unforeseeable pressing and informed way more by the environment in which it navigates, which can be identified by culture, structure, and craft, even the administrative and legislative failures on U.S. school campuses, which are not being assessed by an individual standards, but are by social and federal standards not exactly forgiving when it comes to spending.
Many young people, uncovering the personal stakes of becoming a wrathchild themselves know that “tending one’s garden” is the status quo now, and that its growing mystique suggests an upward spike in demand while for the purpose of achieving an economic equilibrium also requires more product, supplanting our own viewership as supply curve for bloodlust by any particular massacre shooter, whose garden-variety may not come in from within anymore, as if in born in a vacuum, but, instead, because the way society itself is structured— with CEOs at the top as primary stakeholder as well as a constituency of a corporate conglomeration that is run by Wall Street, and its commissionaires which link up the attitudes and anti-social wars that are directly and indirectly begun by the U.S. government on now lone gunmen, which a bit later will become the official positions of the CIA, the Department of State, which gives us our mainstreams news, while the Department of Justice, scratches its head as to what to do about police brutality across the board, not checking on daily murders, but certainly worried about its own self-image, so they are forced to bring in the issue of racism and classicism to the debate, which brings a treacherous balance of crimes perpetrated executed by the lone gunman.
Yet back to Garry Wills’ blog one must wonder: Why do all these school shooting have such an appeal Christians who certainly, if Protestant do believe in the doctrine of predestination completely as a Calvinist would, brings it instead to the third book of the Torah, the Book of Leviticus, and on the Christian end, the angelology, by discussing Milton’s Paradise Lost?
Is it more often the case that such journalists tend to confuse the reader or to wow the reader until they simply cannot take it must longer? Sometimes, it seems, when rolling by a freeway accident we just take a peek, don’t we? That phenomena’s implications are proof enough. We have a blood-lust, a curiosity about the macabre that can lead to sensationalism, but do we really get down on our knees and have to listen to some esoteric, theological explanation of how the shootings in Connecticut, for example, were rooted in the belief of a pagan god, Moloch?
Let’s revisit the 2011 Norway Massacre for a moment, which obviously did not take place in America. I watched Anders Breivik’s PowerPoint presentation on his last YouTube video and read some of his 1,500 page manifesto. I knew veteran who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq, who at one point in time shared a few of Breivik’s views. He told me that after 9/11, when he first arrived to serve his first tour of duty, that before he embarked on his first mission, he and his fellow soldiers suspected and believed they were fighting Middle Easterners in the War of the End of the World and that they, as the Western coalition, were the soldiers of the apocalypse.
The atrocities committed in Norway, unlike the school shooting in Oregon—the bombing in Oslo and the executing of Norwegian teenagers on Utoya Island–might not be a revelation, nor present anything new to us, except one thing. Hegel, philosopher of Western subjectivity par excellence, once wrote about it, namely about the ethics of war and how there was a religious dimension to it, that personal religiosity was a site of subjective identification provided an invisible branding upon the soul took place, and was a way for a subject to conceptualize the taking of sides; that is, a way to affirm identity.
Why is religion sometimes blamed in these kind of atrocities? Why is politics often blamed for these kind of atrocities? Why? Because, for people who don’t really want to think hard, it is really easy to do so. It is worth mentioning, some of the media thought the Oslo bombing was perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. They were wrong. After decades of studies and the active use of think-tanks, one would think that the “terrorism experts” would do a better job at ascertaining the facts on the ground, before they begin flapping their gums, accusing the wrong group or individual(s) for committing acts of evil. That said, journalists and “terrorism experts” alike, as we know, wield catchy words, pseudo-functional academic constructs. They need to get the story out as quickly as they can, as it is even unfolding, to be sure, but they are often not thinking about what they write, and instead, in subsequent articles or newscasts, offer additional commentary, where they pounce on certain ideas signified by certain words to better understand the situational and institutional forces that provoke them to exist.
Now they, the media, if one looks back on the tragedy, were quasi-psychoanalyzing the mind of the mass murderer behind the attacks in Norway, as if they were going to find some swift answer. Breivik was not an Islamic fundamentalist, after all; he was home-grown, a 32-year old Norwegian Islamophobe. Okay. So once the media realized this, they were quick to use constructions like “far-right extremist” or “Christian terrorist,” or “Christian fundamentalist,” or “Neo-Nazi,” even “Euro-supremacist,” a term which sounds precise, but probably fails to capture the nature of the grandiose ideas which, like tentacles, circumnavigate the narcissistic idea Breivik has of himself as a revolutionary and European knight self-commissioned to protect the values of all of “Judeo-Christian civilization.”
Did Anders Behring Breivik have a messiah complex? Perhaps. And the media perpetuated the Faustian sensationalism: they gave platforms to even more experts, that is, psychiatrists, who might drive home the idea to the public that Breivik was mentally ill. The fact Breivik wrote a highly detailed, 1,500 page entho-political manifesto (that was littered with rigorous, though shoddy scholarship), however, says something else for the manifesto was discussed in the blogosphere. Bloggers, it seemed were using the manifesto as a way to debate culture, religion, and politics, and for the most part, were not strictly using it as evidence to determine the fact that no sane person would actually go to such lengths to execute mass carnage and also have a litany of lengthy, paralogical justifications for it.
They—the so-called experts, the psychiatrists—attempted to construe Breivik’s logical fallacies and political conclusions within his manifesto as delusions. There was almost no ways of being objective about Breivik’s mental state. There was no test to see if he had a chemical imbalance, All we knew about Breivik was his words and actions, in speech or in writing, or what he did in Oslo and Utoya island.
We can use all kinds of terms to label Breivik politically and culturally, but let the language be clear: what Breivik did was not insane; it was evil and I will explain why calling it so does not satisfy us. What can I possibly mean by “evil?” Evil how? In a metaphysical sense like Gary Willis suggested with the god “Moloch”? Evil as in an essence intrinsic to Breivik’s nature? No. I don’t mean evil in such terms. What I am saying is that Anders Breivik’s actions are acts of human evil. Anything short of calling them evil and one is caught up meeting Breivik on the terms and language of his own manifesto, or on the terms and conditions of so-called experts. Some Europeans and European politicians, we must remember, agree with Breivik’s views. Can we make the argument that they are delusional or not? Do we even really need experts to tell us and help us understand what Breivik did? Are we so removed from a basic understanding of ethics that we have to bring in interpretations (like that of Stephan Moleneuyx, who suggests that this crime can be attributed Breivik’s childhood and was somehow was deprived of a real father), that we have to bring in scientific, biological, political language to understand his crimes?
The justification for killing teenagers of your own country because they support immigration and are hypocrites in one’s eyes, and are so-called “cultural Marxists” is not logical, rational, nor delusional. Breivik did not commit these crimes because he is insane (which is a legal term, not a medical diagnosis); Breivik, instead, will be retroactively dubbed “insane” by his lawyer based on not only the incident by but by inferring the nature of Breivik’s own self-understanding of his own political reality: that Islam as a cultural force is a direct threat to Europe.
There is nothing abnormal going on bio-chemically in Breivik’s brain that itself is the mechanism that caused his actions. Breiviks has moral agency. What he believes about Islam or about immigration or about Europe was in conjunction with what he set out to do.
The human race does not have an unchanged set of beliefs. New assumptions and beliefs always emerge in the context of present historical conditions. Physical sciences and social sciences rely heavily on interrogating the past, in order to update and understand the present. What is a mistake? An ethical failure? A moral failure? Something inherent in the rational framework for error and truth? Without knowing how cancerous tumors were treated in the past, we would not know how to treat cancerous tumors in the present. History, however, is cyclical as much as it is linear. There are leaps/advances forward. There are repetitions. There are political revolutions and religious schisms that arise from the restructuring of or doing-away with an entire paradigm or belief system. It is the idea of culture that is the lie. It is he media which spreads the lie that is culture, and in so doing attempts to inform how society should see itself.
How a society sees itself as expounded upon and externalized through the media informs our new beliefs and the means through which those beliefs are actualized or expressed. We must ask ourselves some questions. Do we see ourselves as mentally ill? Do we see ourselves as racist? Do we secretly think Western Civilization is destined to forever be direct war with the Other? Are we ourselves accountable for the good and evil that we, as a species, commit on a daily basis or not? I don’t know how any but else feels about this, but I myself feel responsible for these crimes. Why? For indulging in the abyss of what they are. Consequently, beliefs do not necessarily cause mistakes. Beliefs, instead, are present retroactively as justifications and excuses of an self-prescribed behavior. Beliefs are often episodically experienced, randomly adhered to one moment, conveniently rejected in others. Beliefs are never fully abstract, nor are they purely concrete. Beliefs are never pure indicators of impure actions.
Breivik’s last posting on some social network before he went on his mass murdering killing spree, was from John Stuart Mill, a proponent of classical liberalism—“one person with a belief is equal to the force of 100,000 who have only interests.” Why does the mainstream media, and the people who believe in the flash non-fiction propaganda of the mainstream media seem more outraged by the political stance of a killer, that is, the motivation inside the mind of killer, in his manifesto or otherwise, than by the attacks themselves? Do we really think we can fully, rationally comprehend an irrational act of hatred, an ethical abyss? Maybe, we do.
I think reflecting on the violence in Norway is a kind of magnifying glass: we can learn more about ourselves in how we view this moral failure. Depending on how we view it, even if we choose to ignore it or escape from it as an existential fact, which many people do, it gives us a sense of what constitutes our identity.
The Norwegian killer might have seen himself as a member of the Knights Templar Europe. His heroes might very well have been every medieval European ruler known for slaughtering lots of Muslims, but he is no mere Eurocentric who sees European identity as supreme. Breivik was a Eurocentric with grandiose ideas about himself, about himself affecting history—wars and cycles of wars, where some human lives mean next to nothing, and are hunt-able without remorse.
Enter the American Wrathchild: the exemplar of the mental health of a superpower.
If someone wants to better understand how an angry young man becomes the way he becomes, when are we going to stop blaming mental illness and/or theological phantasms like Moloch to find the answer we are looking for. The truth of the matter is that younger generations’ sense of entitlement and the love of their own pending status within the meritocracy/rat-race (and its failures) are what should be explored more than the book of Leviticus to understand the school shootings. We don’t need an obscurantist answer. We need comprehensive, evidence based research that circumnavigates and drives a stake through the heart of the problem.
We should never forget that wars abroad, such as those found in the Middle East, do influence civilians. Blaming American violence on Moloch is like Jerry Falwell and Pat Roberston after 9-11, who claimed it was American’s sins that caused the attacks. How does one not respect those that have died and their families, I cannot understand. How one cannot be sensitive enough to know the families of fallen children are in legitimate suffering right now—whether because of Elliot Rodgers in Santa Barbara or the case of the 18-month-old Arizona boy killed on Tuesday after his 3-year-old brother accidentally shot him with a gun they found while visiting a family friend, as KTVK-TV reported.
The truth of the matter is that some societies make the value of vitality the crown jewel of their cultural infrastructure. Other societies march with Death invoking justifications and make due with the fact some other world is better than our own. The repetitions are not accidents. For when it comes to historical events—-like the misogynistic shootings at Isla Vista in Santa Barbara, the racist execution of Black churchgoers in Charleston, the anti-Christian in Roseburg, Oregon—treacherous acts must be conceded to have happened thousands of times before, in one form or another, upon this forlorn planet in some time before or another, for the sake of similar reasons, too, either through an expensive assassination (like the killing of Saddam in Iraq) or an attempt to thwart genocide, let alone the crusades, worlds wars, the secret wars of intelligence, ideological wars (wars among subjectivities of two civilizations in a false dichotomy), personal wars, or wars ultimately invisible for the sake of obfuscation of their true causes.
If we moderns look back on ourselves within history with good intentions, even malicious eyes, though all too readily recognize who and what we are demonstrates that we are fragile beyond disbelief, yet more powerful than we can even imagine. It is clear to me that 21st century Western and Eastern subjectivity, despite the world’s current socioeconomic situation—whether it’s heading for total economic collapse, or is en queue to flourish as a resource-based economy prescribed to us by necessity or by revolution—wavering as they do between good and evil, right and wrong, is couched within a permanent emergency state.
Some people, however, will not believe they are even a part of the species, nor are do they feel they are remotely responsible for humanity’s fate. These persons place themselves within a personal world, a displaced world in which there is no such a thing as their own ignorance, only Pinot Noir. They cannot or will not look at human suffering or take the stand; instead, they say: “see, it’s always going to happen, so why care; these two boys did it; I have a life to live. Thank God I live on the West Coast.”
These sardonic humorists might play the gratitude game, using Facebook status updates or their personal cellphone, to hide behind the quotations of America’s great thinkers, or they will posit conclusions about human nature that reveal little if anything, whereby they can eclipse the real existence of human desperation, deprivation, death and anxiety; they—either on the television or on the Internet do construct an “immediate ethics,” though one characterized as a blanket of escapism, as if that is all they can do to stay sane, therefore keep on living by “not letting the terrorists win.” This mask of “immediate ethics,” however, this veil or this covering can effectively force people to accept the current coordinates of the perpetrator’ positions, that is, those who are willing die for what they believe in; yet in such relativism, in such a quantification of death, they fail to see the unique nature of the Boston bombings and, instead, cry out: “what do you want me to do about it? Same old shit; different day; can’t you see, we’re fucked?”
But these puppets of doom, these quantifiers of human sorrow, these status-seekers, who are always-already ready to accept vainglorious ignorance and choose to watch only or cite statistics only, or do nothing, or rather take no stance, or choose to instead, allow entire governments to take life immediately, rather than preserve life immediately, these puppets should never be handled by the measure of their own terms. For they are already controlled by their own masters: their own desires. Those wandering stars, I like to call them, those who scoff and say it’s all been done before and accept these “men” as the perpetrators even before a trial has taken place, will even write entire books on the subject, photojournalistic essays, documentaries, and will go on walking tours among people to make their point viable: namely, that everything has gone wrong with the world begins with youth and there is no looking back; for it is now time to become a “realist” and “grow up” and accept these heinous crimes and become lukewarm and indifferent to them—if only finding solace in the few things in life that they consider pure (like their own children, should they have them). And such people will fetishize that which is pure in their lives; they will not take a stance, or implicate themselves as part of the problem.
They will feel they are beyond reproach, having nothing to do with the attacks, are above critique and above misgivings about being critiqued. They will puff themselves up not to enrich or reflect the higher core of our potential but will, instead dismiss, if not deconstruct the definition of human nature itself, as if it were a putrid nature and one in which they do not possess themselves. And what about the post-human?
If the world is, indeed, bifurcated, then no violent act based on an ideological excuse—mobilizing either religion or politics—can exclude those who are defiant and choose to fight for their freedom to live. In this light, it clear to me the mourners in Boston must weep for those who have perished in the bombings, yet must not only endure but prevail, if not by God’s help, then by the help of humanity itself which, discerning what it needs to survive, propels itself into the future, so that it can be brave and can be a hero for itself and by itself for a higher good and no other reason. It is one thing to say that evil abounds, but why then does good exist?
Does it not seem peculiar that good should exist, if even for one second in the entire history of our entire species? After learning of the very possibility of any kind of genocide, let the same humanity be brave then and, in its own eyes, in its own way, make more seconds of the good, and live as the master of its own destiny. This destiny might rest upon the lips of a redeemed liar, or on the epiphany taking place while a person stares at a refrigerator, at a picture of someone who has long passed away, who is tacked up by a viewer who is unable to let go, but who is about to let go, at any given moment. Finding the culprits and learning they are kids is not the issue. Most likely the authorities will search for any ties that the perpetrators have in order to underscore the claim that they are linked to other foreign organizations, therefore usher in an addendum to go to war again, punish the perpetrators, too.
Welcome to the 21st century. All tactics, profane or sacred, are on the table for pomp and circumstance.One cannot help but wonder, if perhaps, there is a some new nature to be sought in the dark penumbra of death: that is not our own nature and that we should, in fact, be cited as possessing an altogether different creature (homo sapiens sapiens) adapting to our life-world in a different way. For if the coordinates are to be reset—and search and seizure rights are now out the windows and habeaus corpus is gone and posse commitatus is in effect—for the sake of my nation and those cynics who have nothing to do but allocate, co-sign, enable the procession of doom to occur, let that not be the case. We need of a new kind of stance, beyond peace and war, beyond religion and beyond non-belief, beyond politics, beyond the silencing of science, and beyond our own self-centered thoughts, which force us to contend that our predicament is somehow special.
So what is stance that one should take? Should one just not believe in anything?
No, we must adopt the stance of saying an emphatic “no” to that which is required of us to keep the machine alive. Some are asking: What if we do fuse with the machines one day and embrace the process? How then will we love? How then will we live? What will it mean to die as a post-Oedipal mechanized subjectivity? What does it mean to be psychologically enhanced? Imagine one of the prosthetic limbs of the maimed. We can easily see that day approaching in the next twenty years: chips placed into us, internet transplanted into our cerebral cortexes and occipital lobes, the prosthetic limbs alleviating the empty space of what assemblage was there before—-these, too, presuppose a set of ideological questions.
These are not easy questions to answer, by any means, but they may be the most important questions to ask because they have to do with an “immediate ethics,” the ethics of the now, which can only be born from a schizoid-affective late capitalism, which hides our problems by compounding them into a set of new problems, where our ethical quandaries are the stuff that comprise what we are made of, yet do not remain within our grasp because we have chosen the “moral high ground” rather than an immediate ethics, that is, have chosen to condemn and retaliate, unable to transform our perceptions and re-contextualize the cycle of violence as it spins even now.
Hence, now there are an elite few, usually born in the First World, though also those who came from the Second or Third worlds, to the First, who are nearly equivocal in attitude as the perpetrators of the Boston bombings, yet in thought alone, not in action, therefore living as hypocrites, haters of humanity, not simply because some government considers them terrorists, but because they do nothing by hating, mocking, cursing their own species until they cam render gross reactions from other people who might want to agree with them, and unlock some kind of criteria to the unfathomable, visceral, and primal hope unseen to us. These hypocrites are not craftless; they raise real questions of what we are truly made of; they just don’t buy an answer.
They do not want to commit. To not commit is to murder a man.
Such individuals have no consciences or would like to bury their consciences because they have put themselves in a corner. They kneel on a mound of salt. They have said no to the question: am I my brother keeper? wanted to say yes because, at point, they believed in “yes,” when they wanted to defend humanity on the condition that brotherhood or sisterhood was not a virus, but rather an imperative and not a relational activity, which came naturally to those who are always-already brothers and sisters in their humanity, who are in awe of the violence and power of the war pigs, knowing fully well what we are capable of, but walk in a murky state that can only be described a psycho-spiritual death, or rather a state betwixt heaven and hell, wherein their soul itself has become flesh. Wherein they walk in the shadows and become one with the shadows. The light is much too bright for them.
There is no going back, no going back for escape.
One can easily just as well fall upon a sword or “punctuate one’s end with a bullet.” (Mayakovksy).
Yet those who sense beauty in the world, these will filter through the matter that will solve their own hearts within their own lifetime; they will carry the torch of victory, having will have fought the good fight, having had done all they can to ensure that pain was less apparent than hope, despite how wrong it felt to the feeler: proving, in earnest, that life is more precious than death, despite how wrongfully right it feels to be one who is cast aside, living on the margins because they have nowhere to go, trying to die daily because they hate themselves for falling out of love with life.
We are all guilty of this: for not loving life enough.
Let us then consider one thing before jumping to conclusions as to who the enemy is; for if it is not ourselves as instantiated in these shoots than who else could it be? Do we need a name? Names? A list? A hit list of names? A hit list of young men for some elite crew to take counter-measures and punish them or their superiors? Yes. But for those who hesitate and do not take a stand on life, who do call evil good and good evil, such are the cowards, the puppets of retreat, the jellyfish of murky, cloaked intestinal crystals, the spine-less ones that stand upright yet hunched over during death, dropping a drachma into the hand of Charon at the River Styx, as they are refused a ride upon the boat across Lethe, the river of forgetting, on account of them dying on uncertain terms, or worse too cleverly, not on par with a sense of well-reasoned justice.
The term “gun control” is a media construct, a trope co-opted by those opposed to gun violence, yet it always manages to divert people from asking larger questions like the multiple reasons people kill to begin with.
To plainly equate guns with murder is to confuse co-relation with causality. Guns themselves are about control and “gun control” is about controlling that which controls. How can one control that which controls? I do not see how one would be able to do so.
Murder is evil, whether it’s done through drone planes (Obama’s favorite form of killing people) or by knives on the streets or by machete in African genocides (case in point: the coming Central African Republic’s genocide wherein 4.3 million people are displaced and 2,000 have already been killed).
So let’s look at the Big picture: According to the New York Times, “Overseas weapons sales by the United States totaled $66.3 billion last year, or more than three-quarters of the global arms market, valued at $85.3 billion in 2011. Russia was a distant second, with $4.8 billion in deals.” The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) spends a lot of time researching trends in armed conflicts. In the world arms trade, 12 billion bullets are produced every year – enough to kill everyone on earth twice. In fact, every minute, one person is killed by armed violence. There are almost 1 billion guns in the world (of which about a quarter billion are in the U.S.). Guns or other light weapons are involved in roughly 60% of all human rights violations. Three quarters of all the weapons in the world – light and heavy – are supplied by the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany. In 2011, exports of arms by the U.S. rose to 3 quarters of the total market. Global transfers of large conventional weapons such as tanks and planes were 24% higher in 2007-2011 than in 2002-2006, according to new data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
Arguments for “Gun control” should not be made against measly American entities like the NRA. They should be tied to the mission statements of large non-profits and progressive think-tanks like Amnesty International, SIPRI, presented as arguments for the human right to live. Gun control is not whether not some person who is pissed off (and wants to go on a rampage) should be able to purchase a gun with or without a background check. Those who take the “gun control stance” often do not look at the Big Picture.
Guns sell. Guns have shaped world history, even defined the financial success of entire civilizations. When speaking about guns and about “the scary fact” that one can purchase a gun and can kill someone does not stop it from happening.
If one wants to point the finger at American laws or at anyone who “allows rampages to happen,” it shouldn’t be against Charlton Heston, but at the self-same free market that let’s guns be sold in the first place. Arms industry statistics—legal and illegal, military or civilian—demonstrates that the US alone represents a third of global weapons exports. The main buyers of arms are China, India, and the United Arab Emirates.
Subsequently, pinning culpability on guns and the people that use them is not enough to stop the market from producing guns and selling them, so if you want hold a discussion about “natural rights” and “human rights,” then one is going in the proper direction by properly discussing the “gun problem” in a global context.
Before anything, one must establish why or why not a person might even need a gun or a missile, before there can be any talk of eradicating the use of a gun or missile.
Americans suffer from a deep psychic trauma, being told they are harvesters of freedom while having none, possessing a collective PTSD and/or a systematic desensitization at the social-psychological level, guided (by reduction in fear, anxiety or aversion), achieved by gradually approaching the feared stimulus while maintaining a passive form of near relaxation.
Why do people (rightfully) bemoan gun violence yet marvel and almost-always expect gunshots to occur in the next Hollywood blockbuster? I think the majority of people who flippantly agree that there should be more gun control do not see their own arguments held up against the bigger picture.The argument about guns is truly about power and fear of power—whether one agrees that a person should or should not have the power to take another person’s life or not or choose to diminish that right, indirectly through either strict or loose legislation. There are many hypocritical stances in this arena of debate; the fabric of an imperialist society governed by corporatism, the socio-political organization of a society by major interest groups, better known as fascism, which itself is based on violence.
I have been shot; I have had a gun a pulled on me multiple times; my uncle last year committed suicide with 7 shots fired from a rifle over the course of 4 hours; I have known people in the military who have “done things”, but when it comes down to it: I have never seen, in my life-time thus far, seen a decrease in gun violence just by staring it.
If one wants to do something, one should join lobby groups that have to via strong argument juggernaut their way through their own understanding of the 2nd amendment, which is rather difficult when we have psychopaths in power and people who are against governmental tyranny feel it is in their right to fight against that tyranny.
Violence is an American problem, but it is a problem that belongs to our entire species. What we have to understand is taboos regarding our country’s mental health. What is our nature? To be cruel? Then why are some not cruel. What is our nature? To be loving? Then why are some unloving? Perhaps, it’s time to laugh. Not at the murders, nor at the violence, but at ourselves for being complicit in all stages of it; from cheering the bully at recess to creating a YouTube video about a World War III that hasn’t even happened. Listen to how a person laughs—from there one can tell and know more about them than any other thing. He or she can choose to live by the sword and die by sword or not—it’s not place to say; some replace the “power” of a gun with a far different kind of power. Mental health education should be mandatory to graduate from high school just like sex education is mandatory for those to graduate the Sixth or Eight Grade.
That belief in a different kind of power—that belief in some better world, which is greater than violence, as we are greater than the sum of our parts, is the belief that we can behold things outside the way of the sword, and we can entertain the idea that life, with its glorious paradoxes and incomprehensible disappointments can lead us to believe that we can acquire a better nature, a new nature that we are afraid to embrace, where the episodic nature of “falling in love” (actively seeking it mysteries, uncertainties, gifts, freedoms/enslavements) is the preferred antidote to “the bitter elixir of obsession,” a poison-laced cure of that alleviates us from a fully conscious demoralization,that is, of having to deal with and confront the sin of the slaying of our own kind.
As it is well known, Western corporate journalists, write their articles because they are paid to write for corporate interests. It does not really matter who it is—The New York Times, The New Republic, The Economist, USA Today, CNN, or Fox— but the Western corporate Media itself is the entity that is aggravating the situation.
Corporate journalism represents the Fourth Estate of the U.S. government and that quite often pounces on every opportunity or rumor or idea, so it can get your “fresh off the press” story out, for the U.S.’s own benefit, having had met its deadlines. It status as the Fourth Estate was originally intending to critique the government and serve the people by getting them accurate, informative information and/or data that is unbiased. All an American needs is the facts. Commentary journalism is different. It is a meta-journalism: that is, a critique of the Fourth Estate itself.
This dynamic is in grave crises. More than ever independent and free presses are needed to keep the Fourth Estate, which seems to have merged with the U.S. State Department, in check.
I will offer several examples for I believe while a corporate journalist writes their article—wanting to get their story off to his or her editor as quickly as possible— actually perpetuates the War Machine and propelling the Black Hydra of Our Times: WWIII.
That Hydra has many heads; it requires the American people to lop of each one to deconstruct the propaganda and feed the hysteria the Fourth Estate creates within the psyche of an average citizen.
Why U.S. corporate journalists not writing about American life and writing analyses of its domestic problems? Why are they not focusing on what is going on at home? Pardon the long list, but we high unemployment, economic recession, the possible collapse of the U.S. dollar as a currency to worry about, not to mention social issues such as assisting U.S. Veterans’ transition back into civilian life. There is a disillusionment with the current administration because it is out of touch with the American people. The majority of American people, in a recent Gallop polls, underscore that the American people are not as enthusiastic about going to war in some other country, rather than focus on domestic issues. While our 4th amendment rights have been taken away—meaning that the police need no probably cause anymore to search because of the Patriot Act and similar policies set up by Congress. The American people do no longer live in a country that is constitutional republic. Under current ideological conditions, particularly as it relates to the Ukrainian predicament, it is clear that the American people are political impotent because the U.S. has become—due to its surveillance of every citizen—become a soft totalitarian society.
Western corporate Journalists are the creators of WWIII because they choose to bifurcate everything for the American people. Hawk versus Dove. Democrat versus Republican. NATO versus Russia. West verses East. Is there no way to be multipolar and live in multipolar world? Western corporate media uses split screen techniques on television, have political broadcasts about a complex topisc that cannot be resolved by two talking heads, with only two points of view, for supposedly two ways of understanding American culture in under two minutes.
Whereas I do not remotely trust news coverage that comes from the Russian Federation, the Western coverage of the Ukrainian predicament is deplorable and dishonest, hysteria-arousing, sometimes pedestrian (when nothing juicy is taking place), uninformative, inaccurate and most of all: propaganda. Why? Because Western corporate journalists serve the U.S.’s Military Industrial Complex.
While the Corporate media cynically giggles behind its readers’ backs while John McCain smiles and tweets— “I’m proud to be sanctioned by Putin”—- it revels in each and every hot new angle to the story about “the Ukraine situation” and gets further and further sucked into the dichotomous “clash of the titans” logic in what it has first dubbed a “New Cold War,” then slowly began using the Black Hydra of Our Times term “World War III.”
Coverage of the Ukrainian plight as cynical, if not insensitive. Many corporate journalists are simply uninformed about the region. They believe “WWIII” began with ousted former President Victor Yanukovych, when he fled on February 22nd ? But this is incorrect.
The “Ukrainian crises, “which it is not—it is an ethnic war of Slavic subjectivity and began prior to the inception of the Soviet Union, extended through not one, but Two World Wars, a collapse of a superpower then the bespredel *(chaos, a word you should learn) of post-Soviet economies. In fact, it goes back to medieval times.
U.S. military analysts know as NATO know that the entire Ukraine could be taken by Russian armed forces rather quickly. While the Ukraine conscripts its soldiers as security deteriorates in the Eastern region, this only goes to show that the Ukrainian military are weak yet somehow mysterious “victorious” too—-disembodied, yet mysteriously have an extremist singularity of purpose.
According to May 4th Fars News, Fars News headlined “S. Arabia Relocating Takfiri Fighters from Syria to Ukraine.” Saudi Arabia sent extremist militants against Eastern Ukrainian freedom fighters. An unidentified Arab security official told Fars News:
“A large number of terrorist Takfiri fighters in Syria, who bear Saudi and Chechnian nationalities and receive financial and military backup from the Saudi intelligence agency, have been transferred to the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, on several planes to help the Ukrainian army in its fight against the pro-Russian population.” “The forces have been immediately dispatched to Kramatosk city in Eastern Ukraine, and are now fighting beside the Ukrainian army forces against the pro-Russians under the name of militias who support the government.”
This helps the already Western corporate bungling of the status of Odessa. Ukrainian extremist, right-wing group Right Sector set the fires in Odessa of a Trade Union buildings that senselessly burned alive and killed innocent people while the U.S. State Department issued no statement that the deaths were due to Ukrainian fascists, I read in one article.
Yet the mode of enunciation of the Fourth Estate constantly fails to realize that the Ukraine has never been a true European country. It presumes it wants to be one in all of its articles, where Ukrainian independence is concerned. Just pick up any major U.S. periodical or rather read off the Internet the presupposed rhetoric the Western corporate media utilizes.
The only time the Ukraine was tied “gloriously” to Europe in any concrete way was by its collaboration with Nazi Germany.
Russia insists Ukraine’s assault in Slovyansk ended the chance for peace. Heads of State are issuing statements and journalists are not citing their sources. This brings us to the issue of how the Fourth Estate is going to spin us right into world war.
The questions that should be asked are numerous, but some examples would be: Who broke the story first that the Ukraine was heading for war. Who shot who first? Who burned alive who first? Isn’t it convenient how a right-wing coup occurred after “a democratically elected election”? Any form of slaughter in this case (and the prospects of U.S. or NATO involvement) is ridiculous and evil. How many more photos does one need to see of corpses for us to understand that the U.S. is in the shadows?
The Western corporate media have managed to evade talk of the money and the resources necessary for the Ukraine to even be considered a member of the E.U. and have totally hopped over the fact that Ukraine’s ousted President Viktor Yanukovich secured a $15 billion bailout from Russia in December 17th, 2013, offering respite for an economy heading ever closer to default but also drawing accusations he has sold his country out to its former Soviet master.”
The Ukrainian government was just as corrupt as its Russian counterpart, yet the Fourth Estate of U.S. government, the media, does not seem to understand that the political and economic weakness of Ukraine itself, its inability to put its house in order is a result of inner tensions with the political climate of the Ukraine.
The idea of Ukrainian independence began long ago. The capital of Ancient Rus (Russia) is Kiev, now Ukraine. The capital then moved to the medieval spiritual capital of Novgorod in the 12th through 15th centuries. Novgorod then became the epicenter of Eastern Christian Orthodox spirituality, which incidentally is aligned with the brand of “traditional Russian values” that Vladimir Putin’s wants for Russia.
If the Western corporate knows how to do anything, it knows how to demonize a dictator. It knows how to do full-throttle ad homimen, straw men, slippery slope, and non sequitur attacks of puppet dictatorships that the U.S. has installed all over the world, namely Central and South America as well as the Middle East, as it funded leaders like Osama bin Laden and mujahedeen during the Soviet Afghan war, which was a proxy war between the CIA and KGB. Many heads of state, such Georgia, Panama, Iraq in the case of the Saddam Hussein, Omar Ghadaffi in the case of Libya, Mubarruk in the case of Egypt. But then the media flips it around for the State Department. We go in militarily and clean up “the dictatorship,” using all means possible to illuminate American exceptionalism.
But now the Western corporate media has found a dictator who is not on the U.S. payroll, who refuses to be part of the WTO, who does, in fact, as he has stated in 2007 speech in Munich, Germany a de-escalation of nuclear weapons. The facts are this: the U.S. simply does not want to de-escalate tit for tat with the Russia. The U.S. government wants to remain exceptional.
History will tell us who won World War II and who liberated France.
Now the Western corporate media has founds its villain: Vladimir Putin.
The Fourth Estate loves villains. They fascinate the public and make it easy to understand who is behind or appears to be behind global problem. But hasn’t the U.S. been at war since 1945, with the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This was not even necessary. The Fourth Estate back then presented it as a political statement. It was an ideological statement at its purest. Millions of lives were lost on the Eastern Front. Tokyo was 60% already destroyed before the dropping of those two nuclear bombs. The Fourth Estate presented the droppings of those bombs as if we punctuated the finality of the sentence of WWII. It was this journalistic event—the picture of the mushroom cloud—-that started the Cold War, not President Dwight Eisenhower warning the American people on January 17, 1961, about the establishment of a “military-industrial complex.”
Another aspect Western journalists have failed to mention is that after World War I, Ukraine was divided into three parts, not two halves: most of the Central and Eastern Ukraine became the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) in 1921—the ethnic Russian population of the Ukraine that wants to separate from Western part whose capital was Kharkiv, not Sevastopol, the latter which is a federal port city in the Crimea, militarily and strategically important to the Russian Federation.
Also, what many corporate journalist have failed to mention is that the majority of current Western Ukraine became part of the Second Polish Republic (which was Catholic). This Second Polish Republic included the city of Lviv, which was the center of Ukrainian Nationalist activity. This means that Poland’s support of Western Ukraine is not just a political statement, but is grounded in cultural and religious solidarity.
Also, what the Western corporate media never talks about, nor knows about is the small part of current far Western Ukraine (the population that hopes that NATO “saves them”), that is, Zakarpattia, was once part of Czechoslovakia. I have no doubt this will be a site of contention in future articles.
Let’s face it: The coverage of the Ukrainian predicament is the worst journalistic failure since the Fukashima Disaster. Incidentally both journalistic failures involves nuclear power; the former in relationship to Russia’s nuclear arsenal against its foes and the latter, the aftermath of a broken nuclear power plant. The Media–the Fourth Estate of the American Government and its allies–have not been straight up with its readers. The Ukraine is a country that is on brink of a civil war because of political deadlock and/or failure of the propaganda war between the Western Media and Russian media. Why does the West Corporate Media need to obfuscate things and set Western agendas by generation of their propaganda? Because it has to fight Russian propaganda.
Moreover, the Western corporate media has already demonstrated that it has next to no knowledge of the history of Russia, Kievan Rus, the Great Schism of the West and East Church in 1054 (a factor no journalists even touches, not to mention its weak understanding of anti-Semitism in the Ukraine, let alone Ukrainian Nazi collaboration under the auspices of one Stepan Bandera. Yet this context is never mentioned. Why? Because the “analysis” and “treatment” of the Ukrainian predicament has now finally confounded the masses completely—with people making YouTube videos about “the coming of WWIII” and the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy— all the while the Western media meanders in its analyses of a Eurasian subject in formation and, instead, shoves supposed “facts on the ground” down our throats on a daily basis, so that we can remain satiated and startled.
The Western Corporate Media itself propagates propaganda.
Case in point: U.S. corporate journalist flip-flop after getting the skeptical disapproval of the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) on the “authenticity” of the leaflets that demanded that Donetsk Jews in Ukraine were to identify themselves, their property, their assets, etc. The story was an outrage, even brought up by Secretary of State John Kerry, then the skeptics came in, checked out the leaflet, decided it was not the real thing and called it ”a hoax. Calling something a “hoax” is often in itself “a hoax.” Which does one prefer? Authentic propaganda or inauthentic propaganda?
The Western corporate media amplifies Russian propaganda. Everything that is revealed is cloaked in the belief that if the “facts” come forth, then everyone will know the truth, but here “lies” are weaponized then held up on pedestals, so everyone can “cry wolf” in unison and say “wow, they really do hate Jews in the Ukraine.” The point is Jews have always been subject to revulsion throughout history, whether this was in Egypt or Babylonian Captivity or in Iran or in Germany or in the Soviet Union. The assumption that just because it was a “hoax” that the Donetsk Jews in Ukraine were to identify themselves we can be able to move on is premature and intellectually dubious.
Are people aware how anti-Semitic both the Ukraine and Russia are? My family fled the USSR because we were literally spit on. Why is the U.S Military Industrial Complex using the media as its vehicle of propaganda? Because corporate interests are now part of the U.S. economy as geo-politics. I would not be surprised if the major news networks were briefed in advance as to what was about to happen in the Ukraine.
So for those Western journalists who are writing stories like the one in The New Republic, which exposes how the “the Ukrainian anti-Semitic pamphlets” are “a hoax,” I assure the Fourth Estate of the U.S. Government, the media itself can take its “journalist points,” and bury their head in the sand for they have leaped over the Truth. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the Ukraine and in Russia as well as in the U.S. Hating a people is easy and journalism is rather effective in making it more possible for it blurs the distinction between fantasy and projection, fiction and non-fiction, truth or lies, let alone injustice for justice.
Nobody one can stomach the coming slaughter except psychotic journalists from the United States.
Human bloodshed is a loss to everyone on this planet.
Russians and Ukrainians are brothers.
While you, “Western Media,” feed the U.S. Reich.
That’s the bottom line.
Image by Lauri Voutilainen
Puzzling asteroid and meteor observations can now be explained
For two decades it was thought that most near-Earth objects (NEOs) end their existence in a dramatic final plunge into the Sun. A new study published in the journal Nature finds instead that most of those objects are destroyed much farther from the Sun than previously thought.
This surprising new discovery explains several puzzling asteroid and meteor observations that have been reported in recent years.
– Initially our aim was to construct a state-of-the-art model of the NEO population that is needed for planning future asteroid surveys and spacecraft missions, says planetary scientist Mikael Granvik, currently at the University of Helsinki.
The model that describes the NEOs’ orbit and size distributions was completed as planned, but the research also led to an important advance in asteroid research.
– We modelled different observational selection effects, and combined them with observational data and NEOs’ well-understood, statistical orbit distributions that vary depending on an NEO’s specific source region in the main asteroid belt.
But the team noticed that their model had a problem: the number of NEOs detected was 5 per cent less than the model predicted. They then spent a year verifying their calculations before they came to the conclusion that the problem was not in their analysis but in their assumptions of how the Solar System works.
The model was then modified to the new hypothesis that NEOs are destroyed if they spend too much time within about 10 solar diameters of the Sun, and this lead to an excellent agreement between the model and the observed population of NEOs.
The team’s discovery helps to explain several other discrepancies between observations and predictions of the distribution of small objects in our Solar System.
– Astronomers have been unable to match most of the meteor streams on orbits closely approaching the Sun with known parent objects, says Granvik.
He and his research team now suggest that the parent objects were completely destroyed when they came too close to the Sun.
The team can now also explain why NEOs that approach closer to the Sun are brighter than those that keep their distance from the Sun.
– Darker asteroids that have been orbiting closer to the Sun have already been destroyed. The fact that dark objects are more easily destroyed implies that dark and bright asteroids have a different internal composition and, possibly, structure.
According to Granvik, their discovery of the catastrophic loss of asteroids before a collision with the Sun allows planetary scientists to understand a variety of recent observations from a new perspective.
– Perhaps the most intriguing outcome of this study is that it shows that it shows that one must account for the asteroids’ physical properties when constructing population models.
– In simple terms one can say that it is now possible to test models of asteroid interiors simply by keeping track of their orbits and sizes.
This research led by Mikael Granvik is published in Nature, 18 February.
IN MY RECENT post about calculating the speed of light, I mentioned Ole Roemer’s calculation in 1676. The basic idea uses the orbit of one of Jupiter’s moons. The orbital period is constant, but there is a slight variation as seen from the Earth. The common explanation is that the variation in the observed orbital period of the moon is due to the changing distance from the Earth to Jupiter. That does indeed make sense, but it probably isn’t the way it really happened.
Although I liked my little picture of Jupiter-Earth and my description of the whole thing, I still want more. Let’s look at two models that show how you would observe the period of moon’s orbit around Jupiter.
Of course I am going to use python to create this model—that’s just what I do. The first part of the model is to create two planets orbiting the Sun. I’m not actually going to use the Earth and Jupiter because of scaling problems. Instead, I’m just going to make two objects orbiting some other object (the Sun). Of course, I could calculate the gravitational force on each planet and use the momentum principle—but I’m not going to do that. Instead, I will just make the two objects move in circles.
Suppose I have a planet in a circular orbit. The only force is the gravitational force that decreases as a one over distance squared magnitude. This force makes the planet accelerate as it turns in a circular path. Setting the force equal to the mass times the circular acceleration, I can solve for the angular velocity of the planet.
Now that I have the angular velocity of the planet, I can just calculate its position in each time step as:
Really, it doesn’t matter what values you use for G and M. For my two planets, I am going to pick the “Earth” to have an orbital radius of 10 units and an angular velocity of 1 rad/s. Now I need to find the angular velocity of my “Jupiter”. Suppose it is at some orbital distance of rj. It should also have an angular velocity of:
Here I have the angular velocity of the second planet in terms of the angular velocity of the first planet. That way I don’t even need to know the value of G or the mass of the Sun (M).
This will now give me two mostly physically correct orbiting planets. Here’s what that looks like.
Of course that’s not to scale, but it’s a great place to start. Now I want to shoot a pulse of light from Jupiter to the Earth. How do you do that? If I start with a ball at Jupiter, I can find the direction from Jupiter to the Earth. However, if the speed of light is slow enough the Earth will have moved significantly by the time the light gets to that position. The light would miss. I need to correct for this motion.
Suppose the light is traveling at a speed c—it doesn’t really matter the value of the speed of light. I can first aim at where the Earth is at and use that to calculate the time of travel for the light. With that time, I can determine the new position of the Earth and aim there.
If the speed of light is low enough, this still won’t work. Now I have a new distance that the light will travel making it take more (or less) time. The solution is to just make a second order correction for the aim of light with the new travel time. Really, you could keep making better and better estimates but I think this should be enough.
One last thing I need to include in my model. I need to pick a rate at which to shoot light from Jupiter to the Earth. Shooting light is like viewing a completed moon orbit. Just to make the program a little bit easier I will choose an orbital period that is a little bit longer than the longest possible flight time for the trip from Jupiter to the Earth. This way there will only be one object of light traveling between planets at any given time.
Here is what I have. This uses some arbitrary speed of light (which you can change if you like).
If you want to play with it, you can try changing the value ofc—and use this link to see the code. In this example, it is set to 100 units/s.
But how do I get the speed of light from this model? Suppose I record the time it takes the signal to get from Jupiter to Earth and plot that only with the distance from Jupiter to Earth? Here is what that looks like.
This is a mostly linear plot with a slope of 98.3 m/s (or whatever you want to call the distance and time units). But wait! Shouldn’t the slope be the speed of light at 100 m/s? Well, it should be but it’s not. You can see that the data makes an oblong shape. When the Earth is moving away from Jupiter, you get a slightly different value for the distance and time than when moving towards Jupiter. You could fix this problem by increasing the fake speed of light. The faster the light speed, the closer the data gets to a straight line.
The distance method for calculating the speed of light is the one I used before. It’s also the one you see on other websites. However, it’s probably not the way it actually happened.
In 1676, Ole Roemer didn’t really care about the speed of light. He cared about winning a prize to determine the longitude of a ship. The best way to do this was to use a very accurate clock—which didn’t exist. Ole Roemer decided to use the moons of Jupiter as his accurate clock—and this is where he found a problem.
The only way you could use the distance method for finding the speed of light is if you knew the exact time that the light left from Jupiter to travel to Earth. That’s not what Ole Roemer did. Instead he used two times. The time that Io (a moon of Jupiter) was eclipsed by Jupiter and the time it was uneclipsed (is that actually a word)? Roemer then looked at the time difference between these two events.
In order to understand the problem, let’s consider a one dimensional system with Jupiter and the Earth. I’ll put Jupiter at x = 0 and it will be stationary. The Earth can then move towards and away from Jupiter.
There are two pulses of light sent from Jupiter at different times (with a time difference of T) as the Earth moves away. Now I will sketch a plot of the the position of both light pulses and the Earth as a function of time.
Since the Earth is moving away during the time between the first and second pulse of light, it will measure a slightly longer time interval—I call this T’. I can solve for this observed time difference by looking at three equations—two for the pulses of light (I will call the position of the light L1 and L2) along with the position of the Earth (just call it x).
Notice that I am using c for the speed of light and v for the speed of Earth. I can solve for the intersection between light 1 and the Earth and call this t1. The intersection between the Earth and light 2 will be t2. The difference between these two times will be T’. I’ll skip the algebraic steps, but it’s not too difficult to show that the observed time interval will be:
Just a couple of quick checks on this expression:
One problem—this isn’t the best form to show the relationship between v and T’. If I do a Tayler series expansion, I can approximate the observed time interval (for small v) as:
Just check. Does this approximation still agree with the checks above? Yes. Better yet, it’s now a linear function between the observed time interval and the velocity of the Earth.
OK, now let’s modify our calculations from the computer model. Instead of just recording the time that the Earth receives a light pulse, I will record the time between pulses (but the planets and light looks the same as before). Here is a plot of the observed time difference between pulses as a function of the relative velocity between the Earth and Jupiter.
The slope of this linear function should be the actual time interval over the speed of light. Using this, I get a light speed of 84.9 m/s. Yes, this is lower than the actual speed of 100 m/s. Why? I’m not completely sure. I guess it has to do with the fact that I plot the average relative velocity instead of the instantaneous. But also have a very small speed of light and perhaps my assumption that the Earth’s velocity is small isn’t really valid. Still, it mostly works.
Also, you can see that at a relative velocity of zero, you get the actual period. When the Earth is moving away from Jupiter, you get a lower observed period than when it is moving towards. Apparently, this is what Ole Roemer looked at—the difference in observed period while moving towards and away from Jupiter. His calculated value for the speed of light was indeed off by a little bit, but it was a great estimate and showed that the speed of light was finite even though it was really fast.
“I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.” Ecclesiastes 1:14
Introduction – Axioms and Historical Facts
In an age of manufactured phantasms, of “public hedonism and private fear,” (Rushdie’s Fury), it is difficult to determine the impact social networks have on our understanding of the world. Let’s not get carried away and call it a Hive-Mind yet, but often times I feel as though I am a stick-insect or some cricket chirping in the darkness, one whose legs have grown so tired of producing a song that there is almost no point in moving. In short, I feel as though I have been reduced to some peculiar state of cyber-monasticism: I awake, meditate, eat, go for a walk, dedicate my day to scholarship, study, my writing; and my later evening usually consists editing any passage of poetry or prose that I can find.
Have you noticed how there are all kinds of useless debates taking place right now—about science vs. religion and the decline of the American Republic, the Iranization of or sanctions put on Russia, the rise of talks about the financial crises, twenty-five year depressions, about the suppression of known scientific technology that far surpasses what we pathetically read about in Science Daily, which are doses of science for the laymen and scientist alike, to fortify the dominant paradigm of beliefs? Last year quantum scientists reveal that wave-particle theory and the uncertainty principle (pace Heisenberg) are one and the same. Why should we be surprised about the obvious? Something is not right when “laymen” know more about a subject than the so-called experts themselves. It suggests that we are essentially “on the air.”— that is being fed information within out daily lives as a way to keep us silent about reframing question and/or coordinate that would re-define our entire species.
Still, though there are those who suggest that we are heading for extinction, the fantasy of fantasies. In psychoanalysis, one could say we are playing around with our genitals and death-wishes. Why does belief in God at odds with the theory of evolution? Why do all those conspiracy theories about everything and everyone have an audience at all? Because eople dedicate hours of their time making videos copying the views of others. All they need is one statement, and from there one person can justify the validity and soundness of that statement by finding evidence based on the so-called “knowledge” that we’ve called “news” that is found within a T.V news program or radio talk host’s agenda.
Despite all of passive intake of information we conduct on a daily basis, I cannot help but concede that the many narratives that attempt (or have attempted) to tell the entire story of our species, respectively, on their own, and by themselves, also have an origin. There is a story to how the story became the story. I am thinking about Foucault here. I am thinking about historical a priori conditions—epistemes, ideological and cultural practices embedded within particular historical eras that inform our perceptions.
Today, it might very well be that the individual concerns of the “cultural elite” inform the construction of a common attitude: that one knows very well that the powers-that-be are torturing people elsewhere, so that we have the freedom to edit a fucking status update.
Rarely possessing any sense of self-criticism, the “cultural elite”—-the intellectuals—-often write boring pseudo-political stories about their boring, hip epiphanies about their boring bourgeois lives. Not to knock those people of letters or who are in the humanities and social-sciences altogether, but it is clear to me that some intellectuals, who value free expression and dissent, would rather actively locate the next Slavoj Žižek or Richard Dawkins lecture or Neil Tyson DeGrasse explanation of time dilation that they can watch on YouTube, so that they can write what seem to be their own articles, but are actually indicative of the fact that they avoid thinking for themselves and, instead, can adopt the viewpoints of someone else up the meritocratic food chain.]
As Martin Heidegger put it: “The most thought-provoking thing about our thought-provoking times, is that we are still not thinking.” So much for our glorious Hive Mind, a sort of buzzing, collective hindbrain that recoils at anything seemingly impractical or anything that might produce a change in socio-ethical direction.
After reading Brills’ The Rise of Latin Humanism in Early-Modern Russia (which charts Western European influence on the Russian government and elites up until 1789), I had an “ah-ha” moment. I am interested in metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics and history of freedom.
The Greeks, being theologians, of course, had “liberty.” They probed what “the good” entailed, what justice might be, what democracy might be: what it means to be political; what it means to be a being that posits claims to Truth. No living creature in evolutionary biology, no matter how irrational or ruthless, aware or blind to its own existence—can lay claim to the posturing, parading, and ubiquity of narratives within the manifold of its experience as we are. If we are to takes a stand on our own existence—then it follows that the species that one is part of, as a Hive Mind, experiences the narrative of freedom as one of its ways of being in the world.
Does freedom even exist? This question should replace the question does God exist for it is in our best interest to realize just how free or unfree we are. The idea of freedom, going back to medieval theologians, theologians was later secularized with the rise of the 19th century bourgeois subject, which we are moving away from today.
In the tradition of Foucault, perhaps, it is time to study and re-understand the context of human freedom: to explore the origin, metamorphoses, and/or collusion of different narratives that derive from attempts to re-define the nature of our autonomy and supposed personal authority. Kant posits, it is worth pointing out, that freedom as coextensive with the self, (that it begins spontaneously, as if from nowhere); nevertheless, history have proven to subjugate or obfuscate the simplicity of this metaphysic and in its place, set it within an ideology and quantified it.
Freedom, as Julia Kristeva has put it, the ideology of the Western world. It is the a priori, ground-zero for every truth claim, any critique, any modern point of view, no matter how godless, agnostic, religious, materialist or idealist.
Modern reality, it follows, is engaged to freedom—its problems and its features. Debates in politics—about who gets what, when, and where—instrumentalize the rhetoric of freedom as the desired end that justifies the unpleasant means of attaining it. In this regard, freedom is given a God-like status in this day and age at the expense of a culture that embraces the ideology of freedom and summons it, in order to serve it as a self-referential selling point to those whom might have a non-Kantian version of what freedom is.
In this regard, perhaps, it’s time to re-read the theological and scientific paradigms that Kant tried to reconcile in The Critique of Pure Reason. Upon the foundational character that work, the epistemological limitation of modern anthropology was constructed. The nature versus nurture debate was born as well as other socio-economic, psychological, and evolutionary narratives. It is no wonder why Freud, Marx, Darwin, and Einstein would later define the cultural experience of the secular subject during the twentieth century. The self, replacing the authority of a transcendent God (a transcendental idea), became the imminent platform for all debates, thereby producing a multiplicity of narratives which attempted to properly contextualize our experiential totality.
That said, it would be useful study the development of modern freedom, as it is coextensive with the self, and see where it is or came into conflict with (co)-existing paradigms. What is the future of our freedom? Incessant lifestyle choices? The freedom to choose what book we want to order on Amazon. I often wonder if freedom is not a crypto-Protestant narrative. There is no better place to look for how this might be so than examinng the ideological points of encounter and departure of the Kantian subject’s (or secular self) with Czarist Russia, Southeast Europe, and Islam. It was Czarist Russia, it is worthy noting, that was the first to entertain, embrace, then reject Western Freedom (as depicted in Dostoevsky’s novels); it was Southeast Europe, “the Balkans,” that was the most religiously diverse region in European history (wherein the heyschastic tradition was born); it was Islam, whose Quranic law, with its own definition of a surrendering self, that outright rejected the freedom of the Western self, so as to prop itself up as an cultural counterweight to modern Christian armies (which were to perpetually later “arrive” at their doorstep in the modern period—leading up to WWI).
With this Cubo-Labyrithine Transdimensionalist Manifesto, I hope to track the development modern freedom from the end of the Enlightenment as it transitioned into the Industrial Age (say, 1750-1871). In spite of technological progress, which mechanized human agency and “arrival” of historical self-consciousness, I argue all Western narratives in respect to the teleology of our species—where we are from, where we are going—adopt a track of logic that is governed by a coherency principle wherein one, often times, unknowingly, accepts and/or conflates two kinds of causalities with one another (theological causality and Newtonian causation)…that is, two kinds causality that are found in the writings of scientists, philosophers, and theologians that preceded Kant. If so, freedom should be understood in a new light, so as to subvert an ideological system that proposes to serve its cause, though perverts it at the expense of those who do not have Immanuel Kant as part of their intellectual or cultural history.
In The Crises of the European Subject: “Kant’s conception is a nodal point in the thinking of Freedom, one whose genealogy goes back fundamentally to Saint Paul and Saint Augustine, then to Luther and Prostestantism. This freedom, produced by a causality of natural and economic forces. Thus Max Weber, in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism demonstrated the inversion of transcendence in the production of social goods. A causality governs freedom, and freedom adapts to it, even as it achieves its own flourishing, by dominating all sensuality through understanding that is, ultimately moral.” In short, as quantifiable narcissists under the umbrella “freedom” of the Hive Mind, we have become post-ethical slaves to an immoral and irresponsible ideology, which forces us to enjoy our own enjoyment by flattering the impulses of our reptilian brain.
What the “culture elite” should now consider in their endeavor to find new narratives that express the situation of our species, is to find new conceptions our freedom. If we are even free in some ways, how are we free? What can be done? If we are not free, and everything is learned by mirroring and biological determination, why not? Do we, as constituents of the Hive Mind have to wait for the technological Singularity to become individually emancipated? Do we have to partially reject some our humanity, that is, find certain parts of it inadequate, and opt to become cyborgs one day, and anticipate the chance of becoming literally “post-human?” What can we put in place of the post-human secular subject no longer making theologically-oriented decisions? Did the structure of the relationship of the immanent self to a transcendent Judeo-Christian God indirectly affect the secular narrative of freedom that reacted against Him?
What if present day Western subjectivity’s transgressions, blogs, deconstructionisms, Dopplegangers/screen names, “ID thefts,” self-help groups, libertarian paranoia, neo-nationalisms, conspiracy theories, preoccupations with Western Buddhism, scarification/tattooing rituals, search for Higher Selves and/or non-Christian self-actualization, even the evolution/creationism debates, or the elusive rhetorical styles of reactionary liberals, originate from the inability of today’s secular subject to process the conflicting narratives born from the teleologies of 18th and 19th century understandings of freedom?
Biases and perceptions informs one’s understanding of art (there is no necessary need for secondary sources, a critic, the drawing of linguistic trees in the quest for the morphology, nor a psychoanalytic theory to apprehend it), even if such methods occur involuntarily as a result of looking at art from an oblique angle—even 19th and 20the century myopic visions—-which caters to an audience’ sensibilities in terms of a work of art’s “quintessence” which must be dismantled and recycled with a heap of books that would cause no tears should they be thrown into a fire. If one is not inspired to create, even a little, one must: and one must work with word at a time until something coherent forms. Words are yours. Realism died in 19th century with the 19th century novel, so leave that corpse where it belongs. We do not live in “an age of realism.
Everything happens on multiple plane and/or dimensions simultaneously. This requires artists in literature, in film, in photogrhaphy, in music, in painting, in dance, that life’s is not a a path or a journey, but a single-by-single moment of discovery, a vision played out in one’s consciousness . Auto-narrative, auxillaries. Once blind, one opens one eyes, which is the retroactive equivalent to the closing of eyes as found in millions of deaths.
“Sergei Eisenstein, the film director’s montage technique who had dominated our understanding of the visual schema (our advertising and/or TV shows are based on his montage technique, which gives 2/3 of the whole wide world its fashion forward “rhythm.”‘ As for the dubious title of the manifesto, the thaw in relations in between various schools of thought are reactions to 5 millenia of art—architecture, culture, and painting—though extends itself to the art of interiority (literature); music (the most direct path to the limbic system); film (an art born in the 20th century, more often used as an ideological edifice by which meaning or secrets are created); photography (a moment in time, the very image that dominates all other forms of our perception as humans), dance (rooted in song, which finds expression in the mobility of the human body). Post-modernism was a misnomer in order to convince the laymen and artist alike to be self-conscious of modernity.
It should be buried once and for all.
Digging up a grave for a “biographical information” for an author’s intentionality during the time they write, or imposing a fixed meaning upon literary work that quite simply has no textual evidence to support such a claim is a stark form of anachronistic cannibalism.
Inspired, then, in part, by the Russian avant-garde at the beginning of last century (100 years ago) as well as the theoretical physicist and engineers that teach about harnessing classical mechanical energy from the quantum field (see Hutchison’s Effect), as well as broadening one world to that of Super-Spring and M-theory CLTM encourages playing at will, per point of view, with space and time, parallel words, a multiplicity of modes of being (or the exactitude of perfectly elegant hells or heavens, attuned frequencies of multiple dimensions, electromagnetic and linguistic pull and push: in short, a Beating Multiverse, a thriving, Celestial cosmology.
There are wormholes of thought, then, passageways. For x does not simply yield y, y can suspend and protect the succession and suspension of x itself.
This can be interpreted however one would wishes, but in theoretical physics it compels one to release data, as in literature differently, as the parallel literary equivalent of what is taking place in science or within the human lie.
As one creates, so one is responsible to protect or destroy those constellations of thought/emotion, and or star-systems, that revolve around idle servitude, or the Abyss anterior to the imaginative principle: on Earth, as it is in Heaven. or As Above, so Below.
Science and art then are not directly opposed; they inform one another.
AS CLTM principles begin to take hold, bury themselves within one’ cerebral cortex, it instantiates a kind of mind-blowing psychic change or “manufactured spiritual experience” that is nothing short of the suspicions of the sacred or the grandiose, and forces a reader/member of our species to consider what s/he cannot and will not ever control.
One must up the ante, taking literary affairs, and making all the genres that one writes in to be accommodated by a clear aesthetic–that of suturing of the what has been wrongfully called “mixed genre” and making it alive and active, more powerful than a double edged sword (Word of the Source).
We must concede, if it were possible, that we not on a “journey” nor on a “hero quest.”
We can find discipline and meaning in our tribulations, in joys and in our sorrows and get out of the labyrinth (hope) by nightfall, so as not get slain by the Minotaur, so we can travel to another plane of consciousness or a space where we put down our guard and learn to trust the laws of the universe—exoteric and esoteric—so that while we still are living, we know how to be vulnerable in front of those who especially need us more than we can know.
As for vulnerability and openness to “cultural experience,” several axioms must be kept in mind before a Cubo-Labythine Transdimensional aesthetic thrives.
Axioms of Cubo-Labyrinthine Trans-Dimensionalism
6) Fullest immersed in the abyss, flotsam and jetsam only subsist, are guided and burning desire to come to the surface, where art and self might launch into the air, through the sea, ascend to the surface where “the culture elite” are fishing—not hidden from human sight any longer. What happens is that Creation reveals itself to itself, and the Light becomes the Matter, the Gravity, and the Force behind Rotational Inertia of the Spinning Worlds, Dimensions infinite in scope and marginalized in thought.
7) The Celestial Abyss is as the vast ocean is favorable, which is advantageous to a proletarian artist, if they all they have to lose is their chains. (Coming up for air is a dexterous endeavor is that dangerous for fish, yet breath in space-time is to create out ex nihilo, which is just like the the Source, yet on a mezzo or micro scale.
8) Even below the Celestial Abyss a Kraken’s cage resides, and there there is that monster that is released, as it, too, is ultimately bourgeois and is made to look bourgeois because such spectacles are the very image of celestial cultural machine itself, therefore even beasts are objects found in the modes of cultural and genetic production by default.
9) The “cultural elite” and their patrons, supporters, foundations, scholarships, audience, their “community,” far from a green way of thinking or even progressive, are put at ease with a pay check that underscores that they have done what is acceptable to the eyes of the intellectual market and subsequently the status quo.
10) As such, “creative technology” is not executed by co-creators/artists alone, out self-sufficient freedom, but are, in fact, guided by the genetic and cultural producers of “intellectual property,” which constantly attempt to revolutionize the modes of production as Marx wrote, therefore making art as the manifestation of the desire to be studied, which is to be expected, and demanded by the public sector, philanthropist sector, non-profit sector, if not wholly acceptable by the Populism Reptilian destroyers of art or Critics, which are ravenous to critique art in an effort to belittle it.
Therefore, creators/artists of “creative technologies” or subjectivities that surrender to the Source, that is, Void, then Light, the Higher Power, Seraphim, Cherubim, Archangels, Thrones, the Principalities/Powers, Humanity, the Dark Principalities/Powers, and then subsequently de-exponential lesser powers, have precisely four (4) choices:
1) they can continue to heed this warning, go on and play out the role of the bourgeois in the context “of craft”, as they have done so in the past
2) creators/artists can subvert this hierarchical paradigm, then demand an artistic revolution, where the public’s taste is the selfsame critique for its wanting to be “cultural” in the first place. In short, become judges of worldly artefacts, rather than divine goods and names, services, products, markets, and underlying radioactive and moral turbulence, which deprives the body, mind, soul from being in syzygy with one another.
3) fall from grace from the Source, the Void, the Light, even, and sell out and work for “the man” (out of fear of losing money or being destitute or bankrupt in the future)
4) blaspheme and consider the labyrinthine structure itself a lie, therefore find countless reasons to not embrace the CLTM movement ad infinitum.
Too many, it will remain a novelty, not an actual school of thought, which has an entire manifesto that explains it in greater detail.
Consequently, public appeal does not warrant the status of a meaningful art. Whether by image or text or animation or drama or music, it is the public that should be stirred to the utmost core of their meaning; they should be disturbed without knowing they are stirred; puffed up without knowing they are puffed up; otherwise any artist who remember what freedom was like, that is, ofa pre-9111 world, will losing visions, strategic direction as an emancipation of the “struggling artist” melts into thin air, alienated from without, that is, not on its own, by the masses who fall for bibliolatry, the mere collectivization of books, and worship beauty on the side for its own sake—not because they want to read or so not wish to find beauty, but because the bourgeois invites them, too, hatred, if not total dismissal of an un-investigative art work; however, erudite or naive it is to accept art as a means to end, such of those who balk would rather have a means to re-visit the vacation of an artist’s mind, “breath read” which as a cultural phenomena that tears the foundations of our slumber and helps see the marginalized voices, the non-bourgeios, even unto the Third Heaven or Third Earth for from escape, perpetually as such a world is a window by which one sees ourselves inwardly, the genetic and linguistic map of the Primordial world whole entire, famished and brittle, lending us to no shock when we do not gasp or turn away from it.
The self is the false navigator of our actions; it is a construct created by psychoanalysts as a short hand, never anticipating how deeply rooted the world itself is, which is part of the reason connecting to a work of art has become a one-way highway, suicide mission, heading for the coming car, that has sped up, while one has slowed down, as simply hopes that lives are not lost, and no one is hurt, or killed, except perhaps the cars, which will be mangled beyond comprehension, as airbags burst out of the driver’s wheel, punching one’s face, in order to protect it.
Watch for Light. It comes through the cracks of darkness; its is the reason there is something behind, beyond the darkness. A world of light, perhaps.
Any world in addition to this one, which makes us wonder if we are indeed comprised of DNA alone, or the stardust itself.
There are no lies now, only excuses; there are not games, only the mental and emotion land-scope of imaginations.
There are plenty of examples of examples to aesthetic perfection which are, in retrospect marked by the principles of Cubo-Labyrinthine Trans-Dimensional Manifesto.
Let us renumerate the greatest of these then, not to be like them, but to see like them, as if we are wearing them as a skull, and our eyes, are looking outward into the world, fresh, not our own, but completely comprised of seeking eyes that hunger for an entrance to worlds and times past and times to come.
Three individuals, according to Scripture, did not die, but ascended directly to Heaven: Jesus, Elijah, and Enoch.
Enoch was Adam’s great grandson, through Seth. In the Book of Genesis, Enoch “walked with God: and he was not; for God took him,” thereby avoiding mortal death that was ascribed to Adam’s other descendants.
Although there are only a couple lines about him in the Book of Genesis, Enoch is the main focal point for 1st millennium Jewish mysticism. The Book of Enoch, an apocryphal text, which, only officially recognized by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, is an account of how evil came into our world (not the Garden of Eden version).
Some manuscripts have been found that predate the time of Christ, and many biblical scholars have argued that the Book of Enoch served (along with the Book of Thomas and the hypothetical source text “Q” ) as a possible source for many of Jesus’ sayings in the New Testament. The New Testament echoes the Book of Enoch in many parts and its controversial nature exists to the present day.
There are several reasons why the Book of Enoch was not included in the Bible. First some background, though: the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) has three sections:
Torah (Teachings); Nevi’im (Prophets); Ketuvim (Writings).
The writings are called Hagiographa. (Hagio means holy. Grapha means writings –hence, Holy Writings).
The Ketuvim or Holy Writings are believed to have been written under the Ruach Ha-Kodesh (the Divine Spirit of Yahweh). . .
The Ketuvim section of the Tanahk has these books (familiar to Christians):
Psalms [תהלים / Tehillim], Proverbs [משלי / Mishlei], Job [איוב / Iyov]
The “Five Megilot” or “Five Scrolls”: Song of Songs [שיר השירים / Shir Hasirim], Ruth [רות / Rut], Lamentations [איכה / Eikhah], Ecclesiastes [קהלת / Kohelet], Esther [אסתר / Esther]
And the rest of the “Writings”:
Daniel [דניאל / Dani’el], Ezra-Nehemiah [עזרא ונחמיה / Ezra v’Nechemia], Chronicles (I & II) [דברי הימים / Divrei Hayamim]
The Book of Enoch was written in the 2nd century B.C.E. Some scholars claim that Jews rejected the Book of Enoch when they made a canon of their own scriptures late in the second century C.E; albeit, this cannot be true because the official Jewish canon was actually established a few decades after the destruction of 2nd temple. This was called “The Great Assembly” (Hebrew: כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה) or Anshei Knesset HaGedolah (אַנְשֵׁי כְּנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה, “The Men of the Great Assembly”), also known as the Great Synagogue, which was, according to Jewish tradition, an assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets, in the period from the end of the Biblical prophets to the time of the development of Rabbinic Judaism, marking a transition from an era of prophets to an era of Rabbis. They lived in a period of about two centuries ending in about 70 CE.
So then why was the Book of Enoch rejected?
Here’s what what one website says about the Book of Enoch (and other apocryphal writings):
A. 1. There are a number of these works (apocryphal texts) that were written from the time between the Old and New Testament through the first few centuries.
2. These works appear to have been part of a writing fad for a while.
3. People used the names of famous people, such as characters from the Bible, to lend credibility to the work – to make it appear more authentic.
B. Very few people actually believe the book to have been written by Enoch.
1. Mainstream Christian literalist would say for the Book of Enoch to have existed all those years, it would have had to survive the Flood.
2. Let us consider Tertullian who accepts the Book of Enoch, about 198 C.E. He says: “I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some. For it is not admitted into the Jewish canon, either. I suppose they did not think that, having been written before the deluge, it could have safely survived that worldwide calamity, the destroyer of all things. If that is the reason for rejecting it, let them remember that Noah, who survived the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself … There is still this consideration to warrant our assertion of the genuineness of this Scripture: [Noah] could equally have rewritten it, under the Spirit’s inspiration, if it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge
C. Tertullian admits that the Jews never accepted the Book of Enoch as authentic and that Christians of his time also rejected it.
1. Some apologists for the Book of Enoch state that the book was well know by early Christian writers.
2. Yet others say they neglect to state that most rejected the book as being from God.
3. Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome all argued against the book being considered Scripture.
4. Only Tertullian and Augustine thought the work was inspired and Augustine waffled on the point.
5. Though the Roman Catholic Church added twelve books to their Old Testament, this book wasn’t considered – likely because of the early rejection.
D. It’s worth noting there are several books that go by the name “The Book of Enoch.”
1. Most refer to copies of a book found in 1773 in Ethiopia.
2. These copies are a translation of a Greek text that was in turn a translation of an Aramaic or Hebrew text.
3. Small fragments of this large book were found among the Dead Sea scrolls
a. Parts of chapter 2, verses 12-14 and chapter 3 verse 13-16
b. But the book has 108 chapters.
c. There were also other documents which cited portions of the Book of Enoch, showing that the book existed.
d. But with such small amount of text, it must be emphasized that we don’t know how the complete book of Enoch read in Aramaic.
4. Most scholars date the book to between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.
5. Larger portions of the book survived in Greek, but again, not nearly the whole. They also date from a later period (after the church was founded).
6. The only whole version are the Ethiopian translations.
a. A comparison of the Ethiopian translations to the Aramaic and Greek fragments show the Ethiopian translation is fairly, but not entirely, accurate.
E. Most scholars note that the Book of Enoch, as it currently exists, is a disjointed work.
1. It doesn’t have a unifying flow, such as would be found in the writings of one author.
2. It is generally agreed to be a composition of several works by multiple authors, but exactly who wrote which portions is heavily debated.
During the first three hundred years of Christianity, however, it worth pointing out that the early church leaders made reference to the Book of Enoch. The early second century “Epistle of Barnabus” makes use of it. Second and Third Century leaders, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all reference it. Tertullian (160-230 A.D.) even called the Book of Enoch “Holy Scripture”.
Nevertheless, this and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. Under the ban of the authorities, it gradually passed out of circulation. The council took place soon after the conclusion of the war between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire, waged by Emperor Julian. Julian, the last Constantinian emperor, attempted a revival of paganism and resumed discrimination of Christians. After his death, officers of the army elected the Christian Jovian as his successor, who in his precarious position far from supplies ended the war withPersiaunfavorably forRome. He was succeeded by Valentinian I, who named his brother Valens Emperor of the East. In 363 A.D. at the Council of Laodicea, the Catholics formally renounced the Sabbath (Friday) and instituted this new Lord’s Day, Sunday. They also rejected the Book of Enoch then.
So why do all these people reject the Book of Enoch?
Because it was considered dangerous.
Later theologians disliked the Book of Enoch because of its content regarding the nature and actions of fallen angels. The Reformers, influenced by the Jewish canon of Old Testament, considered it as non-canonical and thus it was removed from the Protestant Bible. Catholics, however, apparently do consider the book of Enoch as canonical, as one of 12 of the 15 apocryphal writings they accept. Many of the early church fathers also supported the Enochian writings.
So what gives? What does the Book of Enoch tell us? Justin Martyr ascribed all evil to demons whom he alleged to be the offspring of the angels who fell through lust for mortal women. This is found directly in the Book of Enoch.
Athenagoras, writing in his work called Legatio in about 170 A.D., regards Enoch as a true prophet. He describes the angels which “violated both their own nature and their office.” In his writings, he goes into detail about the nature of fallen angels and the cause of their fall, which comes directly from the Enochian writings. Many other church fathers: Tatian (110-172); Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (115-185); Clement of Alexandria (150-220); Tertullian (160-230); Origen (186-255); Lactantius (260-330); in addition to: Methodius of Philippi, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, and Ambrose of Milanalso–also approved of and supported the Enochian writings
The Book of Enoch was rejected for a couple reasons: like most books written in the intratestamental period (400 years between writing of the Old and New Testaments) many prominent Jewish priests or later Christian bishops did not feel the Book of Enoch was inspired by the Ruach HaKodesh (Divine Spirit of Yahweh)…
There is another reason the Book of Enoch was banned from the Bible: it taught the heretical doctrine that some angels were corporeal beings that came to Earth in the flesh. Two-hundred fallen angels, thrown out of heaven (Grigori, or Watchers in Greek), led by the angel Samyaza (Aramaic: שמיחזה, Greek: Σεμιαζά, fornicated with mortal women. This event is found in Genesis 6:1-4, which precedes the account of Noah’s Ark. It runs like thus:
1. When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
2. the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
3. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.”
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.” In short, the fallen angels came to earth and refused to worship Adam (mankind as such) and they rebelled against God.
This event is found in the Quran 7:11 “And We created you, then fashioned you, then told the angels: Fall ye prostrate before Adam! And they fell prostrate, all save Iblis, who was not of those who make prostration.” Iblis of the Quran is most likely Samyaza.
As far as the origin of evil is concerned, another angel, Azazel (the prototype of Satan also depicted in Leviticus), “taught men to make swords, knives, shields, breastplates, and the fabrication of mirrors, the workmanship of bracelets and ornaments, the use of paint, the beautifying of the eyebrows, the use of stones of every valuable and select kind, and of all sorts of dyes, so that the world became altered. Impiety increased; fornication multiplied; and they transgressed and corrupted all their ways. . .” (1 Enoch 8:1)
To be clear, the Book of Enoch was not simply banned because the Church Fathers did not see it as inspired by the Holy Spirit; yet that is only a general surface level reason as to why. Upon some reflection, I think the reason why the book was rejected was that its elaborate angelology, which overlaps with some Manichean doctrines, contradicts Isaiah’s account that the evil angels fell because of the sin of pride. Moreover, the implications that angels could incarnate into men were too far-reaching: it suggested that there was a race of beings behind the scenes, behind history itself, who were responsible for the origin of human evil.
This, in turn, overshadows the idea that sin was brought into the world because Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Moreover, the Book of Enoch also presents the theological issue of how and why an incorporeal celestial being could come to perform carnal human sins (lust). Whereas the Zeus and Jupiter, in the Greco-Roman pantheon, often came down from heaven to have love affairs with mortal women, such “events” quite simply were too “old world” for the Church Fathers to accept: to them, it perverted Christian doctrine, and set it back a level, back towards a pagan world-view, wherein God, as Primal Originator, was reduced to an almost demiurge position, that is, he was not wholly omnipotent, but merely a benign creative force pitted against the principles of evil—that operated within a dualistic universe whose drama manifested in an equally-footed cosmic battle between the forces of Light and Darkness.
There was also the problem of Enochian authorship.
Augustine writes: “Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers form whom the authority of the true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings have no place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew people b y the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings, and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission.. So that the writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about the giants, saying that their fathers were not men [but angels], are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocypha.”
Augustine concludes that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are simply the sons of Seth and that “daughters of men” were Cainites. This is the standard explanation of Catholics and Protestants to this day, leaving the issue of fallen angels incarnating as men to be laid to rest for centuries.
*originally published in Cultural Weekly
*originally published by Intellectual Refuge