Outside in. Spacetimematterenergy. No beforeafter, nobodaddy, no mamafestation, nothing but neti. --The Coonifesto
Only because of the Absolute can there be, on the one hand, a discontinuity that transcends material continuity, and on the other, a spiritual continuity that subtends biological and psychological discontinuity.
Now, viewed from one angle, liberation, enlightenment, or salvation -- let us just say "deliverance" -- obviously involves a sort of discontinuous "leap" from one state to another, i.e., "metanoia." But viewed from a more absolute point of view, there is no leap and no one to leap anyway, just the realization of a prior unity. You might say that in the latter, more eastern view, it is we who superimpose the discontinuity on the world, i.e., maya, and realize the transcendent continuity.
However, the Semitic religions look at it in the converse way, in that humans impose a sort of false continuity on the world (think of naive scientism or bonehead Darwinism, which reduce the world to just one level, thus allowing -- actually, ridiculously insisting upon -- continuity from below rather than above), so the realization of God is clearly a discontinuous, "transnatural" leap to a higher plane.
This is why I say that Darwinism represents a kind of magical, faux mysticism "from below." In fact, this accounts for the religious fervor of the fully committed Darwinist. They have gleefully "seen the dark," and naturally wish to spread the bad news. Our trolls show us that there can indeed be "Rays of darkness."
You might say that God is continuous in his immanence, but discontinuous in his transcendence; but even that is not wholly satisfactory, for immanence is ultimately a property of transcendence "spilling over" and extending into every corner of reality. God is (secondarily) immanent because he is (primarily) transcendent, but not necessarily transcendent because he is immanent (as this could be a result of mere pantheism, i.e., "God = everything").
Is this confusing? Don't worry. We'll figure this out. I'm just getting warmed up. Plus I woke up with low blood sugar, so it's taking a bit longer for the brain to kick in, being that it runs on glucose, you know. Glucose and shakti, anyway.
Schuon writes that "a passage from the world to the Divine Reality, or from manifestation to the Principle... raises the problem of the continuity -- or discontinuity -- between the relative and the Absolute."
Now, one of my beefs with new age frauds such as Deepak is that they emphasize the continuity without the discontinuity, which is another way of saying that they omit mention of a little matter known as "sin," which you might say is our own self-perpetuated discontinuity between us and God. So to simply say that "all is one" before we have undergone the hard work of eliminating and purifying that which is clearly not one with God, is luciferian at best, and probably satanic. Why? Because instead of elevating man toward God, it brings God down to the measure of fallen man. Some God. Some continuity. For if I am one with a scoundrel such as Deepak Chopra, truly, what is Oneness good for?
No. The fanciful continuity between man and God as envisaged by the new age hucksters "does not correspond to any reality, needless to say; otherwise there could be no discontinuity in the world itself" (Schuon). To paraphrase something else Schuon said, it does one absolutely no good to say "all is one" until one has deeply realized the extent to which nothing could be further from the truth.
Ultimately this comes down to the infinite gulf between gratitude and entitlement, or humility and narcissism. It doesn't take a psychologist to see through the bottomless narcissism of the the new age gurus, for blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. A corollary would be: cursed are the grandiose in spirit, for theirs is a condo in hell.
Another typical integratroll left a comment the other day to the effect that he could discern no difference between me and Deepak, except perhaps that I was jealous of the latter's vast new age financial empire. Whatever. If so, why darken my virtual doorstep? Why not just stay at Deepak's blog? I mean, really. If that were the case, wouldn't I be trying to make a living off of this, instead of just -- for what it's worth -- giving it away for free? Trust me: you will never see a "Raccoon Kama Sutra Calendar" for sale here, despite Dupree's insistence that they would sell like hotcakes. However, a "Hunks of the Coonosphere" calendar is already in the works.
Speaking of witch, I wonder what idiocy Deepak has come up with this week at wicked Ariana's hate site. Let's go find out! Here we go. The usual cosmic inversion. Conservatism -- that would be you and me -- is "the party of inertia," and represents "the impulse in each of us not to wake up -- it says 'Leave me alone. I like the way I am.... By definition reactionary forces want to freeze progress, usually by idealizing the past and grossly exaggerating the risk of moving forward."
That's us alright -- freezing progress, idealizing the past, and exaggerating the risk of moving forward. No projection there! (Not sure what Deepak's medical specialty was, but it obviously wasn't psychiatry.)
Deepak has it all figured out, as he is the true Last Prophet of mankind. Respecting the timeless wisdom of the past is just a kind of fear and stupidity: "It takes no courage to enforce 'traditional values.' [Yes, think of the bravery of the Hollywood celebrities who fawn over Deepak and who courageously live outside any moral norms!] Traditionalism rarely, if ever, advanced the world at large." The Ten Commanments? Just superstition. The four noble truths? Just some ignorant buddhahead. The Upanishads? Just a muddled premonition of Anthony Robbins and Wayne Dyer. Traditional marriage between a man and a woman? Hello?! Have you not yet purchased your fully illustrated Deepak Kama Sutra calendar? (It also serves as an emergency emetic!)
You see, if you want to experience one of those discontinuous leaps of consciousness, you have to follow Deepak's laughty example. He even says so: "quantum leaps in creativity, new discoveries, liberating insights" can only occur if we abandon tradition. "Clearly we are at a point where traditionalism has shown far more negatives than positives.... We live at a time when traditional values shouldn't be allowed to hold consciousness back." Let's blow up the Constitution even faster! Those dead white Euros are just keepin' us down!
Yes, tradition holds consciousness back. Obviously. Think of all the saints and sages throughout history who couldn't "evolve" because of tradition: Denys the Areopagite, Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross, Theophan the Recluse... the list is endless. Conversely, think of all the spiritual geniuses produced by the new age movement, not limiting ourselves to the self-evident genius of Deepak himself: Anthony Robbins, Da Love Ananda, Starhawk, Seth, Krishnamurti, ... where does one even begin to approach such blinding spiritual luminosity!
Forget God and his silly demands. No, the venerable Deepak reminds us that "In the end, arriving at a new world comes down to what makes us happy." Thus, evolution is the fulfillment of your bloated ego, which is entitled to a world that mirrors its infantile omnipotence.
However, just like Deepak -- who undoubtedly lives a simple, unencumbered life of spiritual renunciation within the mansion walls of his 27 acre beach front compound -- we must change, so that "Our conception of happiness has to move away from materialism." Indeed, like his good friend Al Gore, we must leave a small carbon footprint, using no more energy in a month than what is consumed by a dozen typical American families in a year.
Okay, back to reality. According to that backward and fearful traditionalist, Schuon, "the discontinuity which one can observe everywhere cannot but be the reflection of the discontinuity separating manifestation from the Principle, or the world from God, and which can be abolished only by the ontological -- or spiritual -- reduction of the first to the second, or by the supernatural radiation of the Principle into the manifested order."
Allow me to trancelight this for you; again, both bonheaded materialists and the sociopathic Deepaks of the world eliminate the discontinuity by reducing the Principle to the manifestation. But this is to conflate light and sun. As Schuon points out, the light we see here on earth is actually none other than a "prolongation" of the sun; indeed, it is the sun.
Or, we might say that they are "not two." For we are nevertheless aware of the central sun above, which sends its rays in every direction, illuminating the herebelow. To fraudulently seize a ray of light and imagine that it is the "center" is to be a doltish Deepak or a muddlebrow materialist, it hardly matters. For the sun does not require us to go on being, whereas the earth without the sun is like Deepak without tradition: pure darkness and death.
Tobecontinued....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Theme Song
101 comments:
Quick and silly side-lite:
I spoke a couple of days ago with the folks who bought my business. The wife is deeply into "The Secret," and the husband tags along, dutifully. They got "tickets" to see a presentation by Wayne Dyer.
Dyer often does "duets," teaming with Deepak or Marianne Williamson or others for his presentations, but this time was doing a solo performance. In it, he claimed that all the Hollywood "Bigs" came to him for advice (including Tom Cruise). He stated that because of his insights over the years, he should be considered a "prophet." All in a context of describing "selflessness."
(In fairness, this is second-hand gossip; I wasn't there.)
Now Amazon informs me he has arrived at the Tao, and offers comments on each chapter of the Tao Te Ching in his new book.
Watch that LBS, Bob!
Dyer's first wretched book was called "Your Erroneous Zones," and essentially did to psychology what he now does to spirituality, which is to say, destroy it and reduce to a kind of absolute subjective nonsense.
"Your Erroneous Zones?"
Sounds like a detailed manual on self-love and fondling your own own -k spot.
Ho!
Julie is wise, merciful, mordant, acerbic!
"Your Erroneous Zones" Ugh. Can't tell you how many times well meaning family and friends tried pushing that pile on me, "It'll really help with X, and my o my how it helps you see what you really are doing when you Y..."
Finally my sweet and tactful wife (apparently future channeling Julie) said "... yeah... but it's crap. (blink) More coffee?"
humans impose a sort of false continuity on the world (think of naive scientism or bonehead Darwinism, which reduce the world to just one level, thus allowing -- actually, ridiculously insisting upon -- continuity from below rather than above
Ray coming with a link to show continuity in 5...4...3...2...
A Ray claiming to be the sun and pretending that the latter is just the "sum of its rays."
Dyer is not a prophet but a hodge-podge spiritual synthesizer and has come up with nothing truly novel in his entire existence.
He'd have been miles ahead spiritually had he stuck with the AA meetings but the cash and accolades wouldn't have been as good.
Perhaps he's just one of those "dry drunks," now selling his spiritual intoxication (the lower kind).
Because instead of elevating man toward God, it brings God down to the measure of fallen man.
What is it with these folks that makes them so opposed to any concept of ennobling? There is a whole segment of society that wants to drag down anything good or heroic or pure.
To fraudulently seize a ray of light and imagine that it is the "center"
Pride is the mother of all sins.
But that is so old-fashioned! Stop getting in the way of progress!
the latter is just the "sum of its rays."
Hail, Petey!
I would like to be a fly on the wall when Deepak pitches his inevitable idea for a reality show to E! network. Here Deepak, it's yours: call it "Our Man in Nirvana."
Or how about "The Windy Hindi."
Bob, what is your opinion of M. Scott Peck? I ask because his book, PEOPLE OF THE LIE, discusses the connection between narcissism and sociopathic -- if not outright evil -- personalities.
Haven't read it, but I've heard good things about it. I really can't say.
GBob, you wrote:
"Now, one of my beefs with new age frauds such as Deepak is that they emphasize the continuity without the discontinuity, which is another way of saying that they omit mention of a little matter known as "sin," which you might say is our own self-perpetuated discontinuity between us and God. So to simply say that "all is one" before we have undergone the hard work of eliminating and purifying that which is clearly not one with God, is luciferian at best, and probably satanic. Why? Because instead of elevating man toward God, it brings God down to the measure of fallen man. Some God. Some continuity."
There is another way to look at this "sin" issue. It is clearly the primary point as to whether or not the Christian vision is the highest vision or not. There is in my view no question a discontinuity which calls for solution of some kind. To place the "fall" at man's doorstep is the Judaeo-Christian vision. It is not the vision found in the Eastern traditions, nor is it the vision that is rising in the wake of modern science.
Both of these other visions converge in placing the discontinuity in creation herself, and not singling man out in this disastrous rebellious way. The fall is the fall into matter, not only as a function of continuous current sustained creation, but in the original sense of once there was no universe and now there is. Man is singled out in the other way that he is the creature who worries about it. Buddhists call this an incredible privilege and gift because now for man emancipation is possible where it was not before.
The entire universe "experiences" this separation from the source in some way. Man is positioned at an advantage but not from any intrinsic special blessing. Rather man is precisely placed within the whole along the continuum of sentience, just past the point where it becomes possible to actually dream of release and perhaps realize it. He may very well be rather low on that scale of sentience. Even here Buddhists will point to this low placement as a blessing because it provides very strong motivation to get the flock outta here. Higher placement along the sentience continuum presumable leads to less suffering and more complacency.
The "sin" in this view is not sin but a necessary divide for the whole thing to even happen at all. It requires no salvation per se, cannot require it without deconstructing the universe. It is simply how the universe is made.
It is another viable view unless one must insist on Biblical Revelation as the only way to envision Cosmos. It is clear that huge numbers of people do not insist on Biblical Revelation, not only the atheists but also other religions as well.
If sin does not exist, then be pleased to show me the uncreated light umkaythanks.
Sin means, from the greek, αμαρτια, 'To miss the mark'. It implies that sin exists as a matter of our will and not an intrinsic property of the Cosmos. Ignorance can be a cause of sin, but is not an excuse for it. Adam was ignorant of all and yet sinned not at all until he had knowledge.
Or, hold up. Lol. He did sin before he had knowledge. But the knowledge did not stop him from sinning. That is, sin is not a matter of knowledge or lack thereof; it is a matter of the attitude of one's heart. (Or, the clarity of one's nous.)
Twere it only ignorance the mentally retarded would be in big trouble.
Christopher:
If I understand you correctly, a careful reading of what I wrote does not exclude your point of view. However, yours would exclude ours.
Coons: This guy is pretty good.
In 'society and the soul part 3' he says:
"A gnostic might believe that the spiritual world and physical world are so separate as to not interact at all with each other.
I would then proceed to insult his mother.
Then, I would watch as he grew restless and angry as a result."
It's most funny because he doesn't change his silky smooth tone during the whole thing.
Naturally, Deepak is a big believer in the religion of global warming>.
"If I understand you correctly, a careful reading of what I wrote does not exclude your point of view. However, yours would exclude ours."
Ummm, perhaps. This calls for really complicated writing to be fair all around. I too work with the notion of inclusiveness or ecumenism of some kind. I certainly live this attitude in my days on the planet. It is more difficult when trying to write with language which divides in order to communicate. That is fundamental to the kinds of categorizations required to actually have a language.
I do not personally dismiss the Christian viewpoint as a valid spiritual expression. However, I dismiss it when it is asserted to be the only one that can be valid, or even the one which subsumes and ascends above the others.
As to the matter of sin, "missing the mark" (what mark? Perfection? the Image/likeness of God?):
As a recovered alcoholic I know the issue of rebellion very deeply, both personally and in intimate observations of both friends and others. I would certainly not dismiss sin out of hand and in fact "clearing away the wreckage of the past" is essential to getting sober. This entails a process of atonement which is central, for example to AA's twelve steps. Sin must be handled in some form or another or there is no "ground zero" from which to start.
I did not mean to imply that the notion of sin does not exist in other religions because it does exist. Purity issues abound everywhere.
The point I am making is that even perfection in the sin angle does not "get you there". It only gets you to the starting gate of the cosmic alignment, which includes that which sin mirrors but is not sin itself. When Buddhists, Hindus, and Taoists in their various ways seek the path beyond the world, it is the path beyond even this that they seek.
In the "ologies" theo- and otherwise of the eastern traditions impurity (sin?) is dealt with as a necessary blockage to be cleared away that is not in the essence of man but in the essence of his ignorance, an ignorance that still permits life but forces rebirth. The blockage when removed permits but does not guarantee liberation.
As for choosing a personal savior as in Christianity and/or a spiritual advisor (guru?) or not, I strongly feel that to be a matter of what I call the fit between God and His man. It is a matter of the message God gives to me, to you, however it is delivered. In any case, sin will have to be dealt with in any comprehensive system. Ultimately, so will what I call the comma (Pythagorean and beyond) built in to the structure of the universe as we know it.
It is a matter of my personal belief that the full range of free will is not possible without the comma, which may be "why" it is there.
After making the word "God" optional in their oath in 1995, it shouldn't be a great surprise that now Girl Scouts are supposed to look within, discover a blank canvas, and find their own values.
Girl Scouts' new radicalism.
In orthodoxy there are understood to be three phases (which are not necessarily discontinuous or exclusive) 'purification' = removal of error, 'illumination' = restoration and realignment of the faculties, 'union' = communion/joining with God.
If you are only exposed to the fundamentalist variety of Christendom and only the shallowest understanding of scripture as interpreted by Christians over the ages, it is easy to reduce the Christian view to simple sin-removal.
Thanks to Bob, Schoun and a college teacher I had by the name of Dr. Papadakis, I have been left without excuse.
Here is how crazy / dark people can be. Some folks decorated up our office with flags and other red, white and blue. I made the comment that at least the 4th of July is a holiday we can all get behind. Someone answered, "But with all that's going on, not everyone is feeling patriotic." I could only answer that it was about our independence - did they have a problem with that? No answer.
"If you are only exposed to the fundamentalist variety of Christendom and only the shallowest understanding of scripture as interpreted by Christians over the ages, it is easy to reduce the Christian view to simple sin-removal."
It is for this reason especially that I do NOT dismiss the Christian heterodoxy generally. There is a mystical strain and truly deep theologies that lead beyond the special challenges of a triune God. I very much know this. At that point the view of the heights may very well be, and I believe is, the same spiritual ediface.
There is still the possibility that God may speak directly in His way to men. There also is in fact historical revelation, though it is rendered problematic through the various historical necessities of the planet that were apparently considerable at various times.
If I were to choose, I would prefer a direct Voice, even though there is trouble brewing if I lack humility. In this direction are the shoals of self constructed folly and worse, perhaps the lairs of demons and the iron cage of insanity. Even so, there must be a Way through or all the prophets and seers are suspect. I choose to believe some of them.
What then is anyone to do with all the voices, personal and historical? To me, I am responsible, or so it seems. My worthiness is going to be my own affair. When the voices ring hollow, I go another direction, knowing it is not my direction to which the voices refer. When the voices ring true, then I follow. I do not in this case know that a true voice means the only true direction, but I have no better way to choose, but active prayer and honest scholarship as best I have done and continue to do that. My course was set by seminal events in my life long ago.
I am presently engaged in this blog in just this fashion.
QP,
That is so sad.
I'm definitly having a darkened day. If I were inclined to give in to sustained doom and gloom, I'd be in serious trouble.
(Mushroom) "Pride is the mother of all sins."
And Lucifer the father of pride.
Okay Bob but you COULD with a little discipline write a bestseller extracted from your blogs....you are so powerful, I often send certain paragraphs to friends who, if they got the whole zenchilada would not be able to digest it....you wouldn't be selling out....you could use your riches for good....
Or, if you don't want to write a book, just produce a CD of your favorite music, and call it . . . oh, say, Sacred Blessings or something, and the money will roll in!
That's what Tony Robbins did, and he's rich!
I don't know... I just don't see that big of an audience, otherwise the blog would grow. Anyway, I'm happy the way things are. As it is, I don't like it when people don't know what I'm taking about, kind of notoriety would just result in widespread misunderstanding. Instead of one dysluxic troll, imagine 10, or 100, or 1000. I'd just rather not deal with it.
That was to Chandler.
As for Walt -- good idea. If I could just get Herb Alpert to license some of these TJB tunes I've been listening to for the last couple of days. His whole back catalog was recently remastered & reissued, and it's one of those guilty pleasures that is hitting my aural sweet spot. The man was a superb arranger, with unerring pop instincts.... Very, very happy music...
Ugh - now that's an appalling thought (all the trolls, that is). Every day would be like Groundhog Day, having to explain all over again to a group of newbies what all the big words and back story mean. Also, Raccoon seems to be a specialized taste, and raccoons by nature are a bit hermitish. If this blog were to take on that kind of enormity, speaking for myself I'd just get lost in the shuffle and probably wander back into the bewilderness.
Tijuana Brass, eh? I may have to give it a listen; I seem to have been carrying around a bit of that darkness Van mentioned for the last few days. Perhaps some happy sounds are in order...
GBob, Write on! But you are right. A growing blog is a very good sign. So would be sales of your first book...
I am the only guy like me both at work and at play nearby...I would buy your new book, maybe. I am happy here on the blog and that means it has grown by one. No question you write well, lively and with clear mastery of the stuff that has chosen you for a saddle. You are often "rode hard" but I don't see you "put up wet".
But in all truth, "they" just ain't that interested...
And the music biz... oh man! There's a game.
Julie - Make sure you have a little whipped cream on top! Definitely a good way to happy up dark.
Oops. A link might have been a good idea!
Dang, that probably came out all wrong...slinking away now.
That's okay, Nomo - I was just listening on iTunes. I don't know if I want to buy it, but it definitely improved the mood :)
Julie:
It isn't TJB, but here's a happy tune nonetheless.
Young Holt Unlimited:
Soulful Strut
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9JkM9S4Wk
JWM
Oh man... Herb Alpert and the TJB... (time travelling...) and the Carpenters (oh... going way back) playing on the 8-Track of my Dad's car... He's driving to the beat (swerve, swerve... brake... brake... GASSSS... swerve brake GASSS)
Oh... I think I feel a smile coming on...
;-)
Yep.
Thanks!
Nomo:
That link was to the unremastered 1990 version. Shame on you! "A Taste of Honey" sounds superb on the new reissue....
And yes, Soulful Strut is a classic. Bit of trivia: Young and Holt were the former bassist and drummer in the Ramsay Lewis Trio. They ditched Ramsay, got a new pianist, and made some timeless funky soul instrumental music for hot summer days...
I should assemble a FineTune list of happy songs....
Yes. Yes you should.
And thanks, JWM - I'm digging the Young-Holt. Nice bass line there.
More happy music: Brasil '66.
Gagdad groovin' on the happy sounds of Herb Albert? Who knew. I guess I have to remind myself that not everyone was a teenager spinning wholesome vinyl records during the Fabulous Fifties. I married a man in 1988 primarily because we share a love of la musica. He played the trumpet in a high school combo and still has all his vinyls from those wonderful days. Just last Saturday he gave me a DVD of "Young Man with a Horn." Music - the best salve for what ails you.
FL's a lucky kid!
Herb Alpert Presents Sergio Mendes & Brasil '66
Herb married the lead singer of Brasil '66, Lani Hall, in '74. Been married ever since....
Great version of Mais Que Nada on that record, BTW...
Also been listening to the Stan Getz bossa nova albums, which all sound great....
Interesting - all this music, the bright, happy, carefree kind of sound - is stuff from the 60s and 70s. I can't think of anything, from the 80s on (and maybe I'm wrong here; there must be some exceptions) that really comes close as far as the sheer light-heartedness. There are happy songs, but it's not the same; there's almost always an edge.
Here's another tune with a similar vibe as Soulful Strut, only with MORE COWBELL!
Julie:
You are so right. That's why I loves my Sunshine Pop!
Sunshine pop!
Don't despair -- here's a modern bit of sunshine pop by Matthew Sweet & Susanna Hofs.
Masters of sunshine pop.
:D Hey, when can we order a "Hunks of the Coonosphere calendar?!!
That's between Dupree and LaFayette, so you'll have to ask them. Frankly, I think LaFayette's tattoos will scare the ladies...
Cool Cowbell
This is about as 70s sunshiny as my music collection gets right now. You can really get a sense for the transition, though, between the simple, goofy happiness of before and the hint of alternative to come. I never noticed that before. Here's another of theirs that I like (this version is way more dreamy-sounding than I'm used to, though); the first time you posted a Scott Walker song, Bob, it reminded me of this one.
Julie, they were few and far between, but there was some Sunshine.
See, I knew there were some exceptions. Here's one that's been on the radio a lot lately.
Of course, even that one is tinged with melancholy. But at least it isn't ironic.
Actually, Rhino has a very cool box set called Children of Nuggets, which has 100 relatively rare tracks, mostly from the 80s and '90s, of power pop, jangle rock, garage, light psychedelia, and the occasional neo-sunshine pop, for example, the Wondermints. Highly recommended.
This is also a fantastic record by the legendary La's.
The Brit Box is also excellent.
I never knew who sang this song. Thanks!
Liverpool's third greatest group after you-know-who and Echo & the Bunnymen... "La's" is Liverpudlian for "Lads," pronounced with a hard "r."
My nomination for the happiest, most positive song ever on the American pop charts...from back in the day when African-American music's main influence was the church, rather than the cell block.
Sunshine Pop tinged with soft psychedelia from a band I once described as "the Mamas and the Papas backed by the Yardbirds".
Aquila:
Cooncur on the Five Stairsteps! I never get tired of O-o-h Child. Very underrated group -- their Greatest HIts compilation is excellent -- archetypal Chicago soul.
I love the period of soul music from around 1970 to the onset of the disco era... As you said, very happy and optimistic... no anger or bitterness at all.
I haven't yet heard much of the Peanut Butter Conspiracy, but they are considered one of the unsung greats of sunshine pop.
Kids these days.
Van said: and the Carpenters (oh... going way back) playing on the 8-Track of my Dad's car... He's driving to the beat (swerve, swerve... brake... brake... GASSSS... swerve brake GASSS)
I had Pink Floyd on 8-track.
Back when I worked in Irving, TX we were supposed to get some 3480 tapes of a bank portfolio to do our due diligence. I was talking to one of the analysts that I was supposed to break the stuff out for. She was a rather cute young woman, a little older than my daughter at the time. There might have been a little innocent flirting going on. So I said, "Be on the lookout for those tapes, they kind of look like 8-tracks."
"Hmmm," she said, "I think my dad had some of those."
OK.
They don't need to waterboard me -- just start playing "Close To You" and I'll tell them whatever they want to know.
My idea of happy music is either uptempo old-time Southern Gospel, e.g., Vestal Goodman cutting loose, the Speers, Glen Payne and George Younce getting happy with the Cathedrals -- or more along the lines of Skynnyrd's "Mississippi Kid",the Allman Bros. "Pony Boy", and the Holmes Brothers "Gasoline Drawers". I can't do youtube from here.
Speaking of 70's soul:
Larry Elder's theme music.
Jr Walker and the All Stars, Way Back Home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIuN37lQwuQ
JWM
Probly so late no one will see it, but this is today's happy dance for me. Makes me smile http://www.vimeo.com/1211060
Dloye, cool - there's even a Tonga dance in there!
Junior Walker is another unsung soul great. Most people have only heard Shotgun, Roadrunner, and What Does it Take to Win Your Love, but he had a lot of great performances.... It's very easy to be overshadowed when you're on the same label as Marvin Gaye, the Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Stevie Wonder, and the Four Tops.
Great Junior Walker collection.
For a real lift!
I should have known not to go sampling 80's video's on YouTube... they soon slipped from the Sunshine, to the morning beach or mountain mist of Tisfairlaesgruen... and then the Malothorungodel comes - a couple o' made up words from way back when... seems as though they've still got some meaning though.
Music... it doesn't only soothe... but then bittersweet's got its uses too.
Ah well... to bed.
The central truth under attack by Darwinism is the concept, idea, "reality." of original sin. As I argued this over in the emerging domain of darkness of LGF as the poster Kepler Sings you could not have found a more vile, profane, infantile, hate-filled reaction even if you had gone to the Daily Kos and extolled the virtues of Reagan.
LGF has become the very thing they claim to hate in the Left Wing blogs, an echo chamber of sloganeering and enforced communal beliefs. Charles Johnson has been "evolving" from a liberal that was mugged by 911, to a Holy Warrior for idealogical purity, his battle cry seems to be the Islamic Fundamentalist is no worse than the Christian fundamentalist disgusted with the rote parroting of "evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact!"
Try to tell professing Christians that no matter the science, even if the Nobel Prize winning Global Warming scientist Al Gore were to proclaim evolution as the pinnacle of scientific thought, you cannot accept this theory (which is continually being proved wrong) and maintain a Christian faith, because the doctrine of original sin precludes such a belief.
It is a simple equation given to us in that one man (Adam) brought sin into the world, and so in the economy of God (not magic...God does not do magic) one man (Christ )can take sin out of the world. Now it matters not from the perspective of Biblical doctrine whether there were a bunch of gibbering apes in the Earth and God breathed his spirit into one of them...thus setting that ape apart as a new KIND of being, or if there were no Cro-Magna men, and God created Adam directly out of the dust.
Most important is God did create a single man who sinned (along with his wife) and from that single pair all human beings have been born from that original DNA. I find it peculiar that the Darwinist can imagine, propose, guess, fantasize that everything came from a single cell, yet they scoff that all humanity came from a single set of parents.
We need to understand that Adam and Eve were the only perfect human beings that ever existed...and they failed. Physically none of us have the perfect DNA of Adam and Eve, likewise none of us has the purity of spirit of either one of our original parents.
Therefor God is justified in saying, "you were in that Garden and made the choice with Adam, (you were/are Adam) if I took you now and put you there as-is, you would fail just as they did, only faster, because you are even less than they."
It is this knowledge the Darwinist and weak Christian believers are running from; the reality that you alone are responsible for your condition of sin, of separation from God. Indeed even those that openly love God, see His creation and worship Him, have a part of them that fears this encounter. For sin (a major component of our being) dies in God's presence.
God is no joke or passive entity, He is a being terrible and awesome, we will never begin to know Him until we fear Him, not baby fear, but the terrible fear of a God that would not even spare his own son, but put him to a agonizing and horrible death...all over this issue of sin.
It will not go on much longer, I think. Revelations tells us a time comes when God is so present on the earth that men cry for the mountains and rocks to cover them, lest they see the face of God. Darwinism is the beginning of that cry, men looking to rocks and dirt to hide them from the absolute creative power of God. Now that cry is an intellectual cry, but it will fill the whole of men, and they will seek physical death, rather than face this reality.
All pretending that something, anything, some force, non-force, quantum vacuum, or the vacuum in their heads produced all that is, or ever has been, or ever will be instead of this person we call God, but hardly know. Because to admit that all is created by a person, demands that the only real reason for life, for all this observation, for all our relationships, they do only one thing, point us to that person. Or rather THE person.
Only someone insane in some way, would live in a great house where food comes through the door morning and night, you hear voices all day, activity throughout the house, and you never leave that room to investigate? To find out who built, or owns the house?
Kepler Sings
Bryan Adams sings too.
(Kepler Sings) "...Adam and Eve were the only perfect human beings that ever existed." I'm with you all the way, but don't leave out the third perfect human being -"the last Adam".
Kepler:
I couldn't agree with you more about Charles becoming a right wing mirror of Kos. And I agree with the rest of what you said, although with certain subtle modifications in order to make certain that it makes TOTAL SENSE within the pneuma-cosmic economy. In other words, there's no problem with what you said for someone who already understands it. But the modern mind demands a kind of logical consistency, so I would probably say it a bit differently, even though logical consistency is somewhat beside the point and "extrinsic" to the truth being conveyed. Ultimately you either get it or you don't.
The main point is that Darwinism applies to a limited material domain, whereas Christianity applies to the much wider human world, however you interpret it. However -- and this is just my opinion -- only an esoteric understanding fully resolves any doctrinal contradictions that occur if one views theology in too literal, or materialistic, a manner. Part of the Raccoon mission, as it were, involves formulating these timeless truths in a manner acceptable to modern ears.
In other words, the main point is to understand the truth of the human situation. There was a time that humans could hear about Adam in such a way that it made perfect sense. But now, with layers of materialism between man and the primordial Truth, you have to say the same thing in such a way that you can either "melt" the ice or drill through the rock between man and Truth....
George Weigel sings "Habits of Mind".
Kepler Sings - "I find it peculiar that the Darwinist can imagine, propose, guess, fantasize that everything came from a single cell, yet they scoff that all humanity came from a single set of parents."
The problem here is that each person has two pairs of chromosomes, each with a copy of a particular gene. Two in the father, two in the mother. So, there is a maximum of four possible alleles - versions of a gene - in the parents. You can't fit more than that in a standard-issue human being, however perfect their DNA.
But there are many, many genes for which more than four alleles exist. Not all of them could have fit into a single pair of parents. So, humans could not have originated from just one breeding pair. QED.
Not commenting on the rest. Just pointing out a problem with that particular issue.
Also by describing DNA as the vector of Original Sin, we would end up with the blasphemous notion that the best thing the Jesus could have done would be to have as many children as possible, thus improving mankind's DNA.
Jesus opened a way for people with very, very human DNA. Believe it or not.
So, we can say that one of Ray's ancient ancestors did scream, "Get your paws off me you damn dirty ape."
Well said, Magnus.
Mushroom - here's a ring (an O?) that may enlighten you as to how species actually form, except in time, not space.
QP,
I was reading the article you linked... and guardedly agreeing with it as I went along, guardedly because with,
"The essays, Weigel writes, are “attempts to show how Catholic understandings of the human person and human society, human origins and human destiny—all of which derive from the basic Christian confession of faith—can shed light on controverted and urgent questions of public life.”
, I wonder if that includes the Church policy of Distributionism, which IMHO is diluted socialism by another frame, and doomed to failure. Then my detectors flared up on
"Three Weigel essays explore how best to conduct the war against jihadism in the context of the “just war” tradition in Christian theology..."
, well, 'Just War' theory, IM(not so)HO has been used primarily as a tool to disarm the West and offer up our necks to the chopping block, but then it was followed by,
” Contrary to what we have heard from many Christian leaders, the just war tradition does not begin with a “presumption against war.” Instead, the tradition begins “by defining the moral responsibilities of governments, continues with the definition of morally appropriate political ends, and only then takes up the question of means.” In other words, war can be a moral instrument, one amenable to rational discussion and “subject to moral scrutiny.” And that scrutiny reveals that one should start with the ius ad bellum—the reasons for going to war—and then proceed to the ius in bello, which addresses issues of proportionality and discrimination. To reverse the order of questions—as do many pacifists—is to build a priori obstacles to just war, which can in turn have dangerous consequences for “the legitimate sovereign’s moral obligation to defend and promote right order.”
Wo. Ok... interesting...although my idea of 'proportionality' is "Will a $5 bullet kill them as well as a $10 one, without putting our people at any further risk?", but ok, this sounds worth reading... but even more interesting, who is this reviewer who obviously gets it himself? And then scrolling up I see it's Bruce S. Thornton, oft partner of Victor Davis Hanson.
Ah... mystery solved, and another book added to my to-buy list.
Thanks for the ref QP.
Ray, do you ever actually read anything anybody writes? I was doing award-winning science fair projects on gene mutation and evolution in high school. Long before you were ever born.
I don't care about your stupid biology, but I really wish you'd quit spoiling my jokes.
You're welcome Van. I actually consciously thought that you, specifically, would get it.
Weigel's stance on the subject of "just war" IMHO is well reasoned *and* in direct opposition to the Holy See.
By "the Church policy of Distributionism", are you referring to Liberation Theology? If so, my understanding is PB16 opposes it and is in the process of issuing (if he has not already) a statement to the effect. I'll be interested in reading that one.
Mushroom, I'm afraid Ray is a bark chewer and is doomed to miss jokes, slay haiku and reference only, never Read.
Typical of the determimystic's, he has his face pressed up so close to the trees, he not only doesn't see the forest, but but asserts that it doesn't exist ("Forest! You don't need no stinkin' forest! Look at this cellular structure! It does it all!")... best no to look too closely... you think a piece of salad stuck between the teeth is unsightly? Wait till you get a load of a mouth full of readwode.
You're right. I know. I need to take a deep breath, put some vodka in the iced tea. I'm calm now.
QP said "...By "the Church policy of Distributionism", are you referring to Liberation Theology?..."
I don't think so, I was refering to the Church's economic policy of Distributionism (wiki summary) ( a couple years ago, I had a little exchange with another blog on the subject, here and here).
Van, I'm deeply grateful for the clarification and links.
I'll have time to read closely over the weekend.
Wishes for a safe and Happy Independence Day.
Van - Uno mas cosa, then I really have to focus on bizness.
From the wiki link: "Distributism favors the elimination of the current private bank system, or in any case, its profit-making basis. This does not necessarily entail nationalization, but would probably require government involvement of some sort."
Did you see
this in the Wall Street Journal?
Markets for the Poor in Mexico
June 30, 2008
Helping the poor may be virtuous, but when the poverty industry starts losing "clients" because the market is performing good works, watch out.
QP,
Yep, that describes what was the source of my skepticism for what Deep was saying. He was behind a 'wholly volunteer, non-profit financing and support system'... which, as something some people do to help out others on their personal time that's fine (often aka 'Family'), but as an established system, which relies upon the people it is 'helping' out, to go on needing them for its own existence... it can't & won't remain 'between friends', it will move 'up' the line from family & friends to charity to ngo to Gov't and regulated, and the lost benefits in efficiency, productivity and freedom will be inversely proportional to the movement 'up' that scale.
"...... it can't & won't remain 'between friends', it will move 'up' the line from family & friends to charity to ngo to Gov't and regulated, and the lost benefits in efficiency, productivity and freedom will be inversely proportional to the movement 'up' that scale."
✔
I co-signed a note for a "friend" ONCE.
He defaulted. Lesson learned.
Bob,
I understand entirely what you are attempting and agree completely. I mostly weigh in with a straight scriptural interpretation, although, I hope with some Revelation. We need words that are not dead, or destroyed by two thousand years of religious intepretation and misuse. We need our own synthesis of Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas
Kepler Sings
Post a Comment