Stand Tall

Contrary to what people might think, Nuts was staffed by left-leaning middle-class family men (and women) who were smart, funny and talented. The office would usually be found picking apart last night's Newsnight, rowing about politics or discussing house prices.

 [...] They were the funniest, brightest group of people I'd ever had the pleasure of working with.

[Terri White]
"My success was built on other women's boobs", Observer Magazine

................................................................................................................................................................................


The people who can lead must lead.

The people who know better must act better.

There is a tendency in our culture for those of us who know better to indulge in things that we do not truly like or believe in whilst justifying our actions through irony.

We stand at the threshold of some sinful place and delight in its sights, whilst assuring anyone that passes by that we think it is terrible and depraved.

Yet we stay and watch.

We can see this clearly in the overarching nature of popular culture. There are those of us who may not see any problems in a programme like Jeremy Kyle for instance. We may see it as harmless entertainment, and may even think of it in a positive light.

But there are those of us who, if we think deeply enough, will find many things about it problematic. Yet we continue to watch it regardless of our reservations.

We watch with two sets of eyes. We delight in its base appeal - its cheap thrills and cheap laughs. Yet we also see beyond these shallow attractions. We see its problems, and the problems that it poses and reflects on a larger scale.

Irony is often a refuge for those of us who know better, because it allows us to have our cake and eat it. It allows us to split in two; to speak of principles, whilst acting in a manner that is contrary to them. It is a form of detachment; part of us breaks off and floats free above us, able to see and comment upon what we are doing without being tied down to our body and our acts.

Whilst irony may distance us from the consequences of our actions, it does not protect us from them. It is like a painkiller: we may not feel the pain but it is still there.

Irony finds its natural home in a culture of appearances; in a culture where we are judged by what we seem to do, rather than what we actually do. By what we seem to believe in, rather than what we actually believe in.

Our free floating culture has floated far enough. We are in danger of becoming entirely detached from what is real. We are losing sight of the consequences of our actions. We are getting lost in the fantasy world of words and images that we have spun around ourselves and have started to believe that it is real; that our dreamworld can replace the real world, if only we believe in it enough. We tell ourselves that there is no such thing as real, and are led to the conclusion that if there is no real then there is only what we imagine there is. And so we float further into the clouds; further away from the ground.

We are like a person who imagines themselves to be a bird. They may be able to maintain the fantasy for a while but eventually, and inevitably, they will find themselves on a rooftop ready to fly toward the heavens. Soon enough their body - that undeniable anchor - will remind them of who they are; and soon enough they will come crashing back to earth.

There is only so long that this kind of fantasy can continue before we come collectively crashing downwards; before reality begins to assert itself upon us, regardless of our posturing.

That time is now.

These times demand an end to irony. They demand that we become attached. That we become reconciled to what is real, and that we become responsible for it.

We can no longer afford to shelter within irony in order to avoid the reality of our actions. The only way we can create a more balanced and healthy environment is to be led towards it by those who are able to lead. If our leaders shrug their duty, then what hope do we have?

It is acts that convince, not words.

In any collective, there are those who have the strength and vision to lead the way. But it seems that our current culture is so unhealthy and unbalanced that even these people - our guiding spirits - have lost their way. By indulging in cheap and unhealthy habits they make themselves cheap and unhealthy. Instead of leading us to great things, they lead us further and further into an abyss.

Base culture has become so pervasive that it has become acceptable for anyone to indulge. Taken with a pinch of irony, anything becomes acceptable. Where do we draw the line? How much of ourselves are we willing to let go of? How low are we all willing to sink?

There will always be those who live in holes, who see only darkness and depravity. But these people must be balanced by their opposite. If, as we are doing more and more, we all decide to crawl down into these holes, then what hope can we have for our future?

Base culture is like junk food. We know it is bad for us, but it offers a quick and temporary appeal. It does not nourish us, but it tastes good whilst it lasts. It stimulates our taste buds with exaggerated flavours, giving us an instant hit.

Indulging in base culture ironically - with a degree of self-awareness and separation; with conflicted intent - is akin to eating junk food ironically. Regardless of your stance, it is going into your system and wreaking the same havoc as it is with anyone else.

The pattern of indulging in something that we know is bad for us is one of addiction.

The things that we are addicted to will ruin us in the end. The things that our society is addicted to will ruin us all if we are not careful.

If you can do better then you must.

Be honest about your dependencies.
Be strong.
Fight your addictions.

Just as those who are tall must stand tall and avoid slouching or stooping lest they risk problems in later life; those who are morally tall must also strive to stand at their full height.

Our culture vulgarizes us and encourages us all to stoop down. We must fight against its influence and stand at our true height, whatever it may be.

We must stop pandering to a culture that is beneath us. By engaging in it, even if only ironically, we are propping it up and ensuring its existence.

Do it not only for yourself, but for those who are relying on you to show them the way.

Do what you can.

Those who know better must act better.

................................................................................................................................................................................

In the Mysteries, celibacy is reserved for those who have reached a certain degree of spiritual unfoldment. When advocated for the mass of unenlightened humanity, however, it becomes a dangerous heresy, fatal alike to both religion and philosophy.

[Manly P. Hall]
'Qabbalistic Keys to the Creation of Man', The Secret Teachings of All Ages, p.378

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Sailing the Turbulent Seas
Only Playing
You or The Work
Sell Out
Perils of Radical Subjectivity
Life Amongst the Rubble

You or The Work

................................................................................................................................................................................

Individual                       -                      Collective
Part                                 -                       Whole

................................................................................................................................................................................

The cells work together to form a tissue.
The tissues work together to form an organ.
The organs work together to form an organ system.

Each individual works in service to a higher truth, and contributes towards the ongoing existence of the plant (the whole).

................................................................................................................................................................................

I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.

You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid.

You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house. So you refuse to take a stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at 38 as you would be at ninety. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.

You died when you refused to stand up for right. You died when you refused to stand up for truth. You died when you refused to stand up for justice.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
From the sermon “But, If Not” delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church on November 5, 1967. Found in The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.344

................................................................................................................................................................................

When I first took my position against the war in Vietnam, almost every newspaper in the country criticized me. It was a low period in my life. I could hardly open a newspaper.

[...] But then I remember a newsman coming to me one day and saying, "Dr. King, don't you think you're going to have to change your position now because so many people are criticizing you? And people who once had respect for you are going to lose respect for you. And you're going to hurt the budget, I understand, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; people have cut off support. And don't you think that you have to move now more in line with the administration's policy?"

That was a good question, because he was asking me the question of whether I was going to think about what happens to me or what happens to truth and justice in this situation.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question, "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.342

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] when I took up the cross I recognized its meaning. It is not something that you merely put your hands on. It is not something that you wear. The cross is something that you bear and ultimately that you die on.

The cross may mean the death of your popularity [...] It may mean the death of a foundation grant. It may cut your budget down a little, but take up your cross and just bear it.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.343

................................................................................................................................................................................

DANIELS: Anything you want to tell me? Been weeks, now. The deputy ops knows what's going on in this unit almost before I do. Except last week, we run the bug up into Barksdale's club office and Burrell... For once, he's a step behind. You see it?

CARVER: Maybe, he...

DANIELS: I see it. I look around the office and I see that one of my people is at the academy for in-service.

CARVER: Lieutenant, I swear, it wasn't my idea. I mean, I'm minding my business, doin' my fuckin' job, when the man calls me upstairs for coffee and a danish, right? I mean, I never even been on the eighth floor of that fucking building. And there's the deputy fucking ops telling me how concerned he is about the case, how he needs to be informed. I mean, he's the deputy fucking ops, man.

DANIELS: Couple weeks from now, you're gonna be in some district somewhere with 11 or 12 uniforms looking to you for everything. And some of them are gonna be good police. Some of them are gonna be young and stupid. A few are gonna be pieces of shit. But all of them will take their cue from you. You show loyalty, they learn loyalty. You show them it's about the work, it'll be about the work. You show them some other kinda game, then that's the game they'll play. I came on in the Eastern, and there was a piece-of-shit lieutenant hoping to be a captain, piece-of-shit sergeants hoping to be lieutenants. Pretty soon we had piece-of-shit patrolmen trying to figure the job for themselves. And some of what happens then is hard as hell to live down.

Comes a day you're gonna have to decide whether it's about you or about the work.

Dialogue from The Wire, Episode 13, Season 1

................................................................................................................................................................................

Pearlman: The point is that Maury Levy is a past officer of the Monumental Bar Association, and unless I want to spend my whole life as a fucking A.S.A. I can't spend my afternoons pissing on people who matter.

McNulty: Another career in the balance.

Pearlman: Fuck You

McNulty: No, fuck you. If only half you motherfuckers in the State's Attorneys Office didn't want to be Judges, didn't want to be partners in some down-town law firm; if half of you had the fucking balls to follow through - you know what would happen? A guy like that would be indicted, tried, and convicted. And the rest of them would back up enough so that we could push a clean case or two through your courthouse. But no - everybody stays friends, everybody gets paid, and everybody's got a fucking future.

Dialogue from The Wire, Episode 11, Season 1

................................................................................................................................................................................

And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril. In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.

Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had.

Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.

[...] What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations. The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.

Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.

[Peter Sissons]
"Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons", from Daily Mail Online.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Tell me the truth, Frank.

Remember that? We used to live by it. And you know what's so good about the truth? Everyone knows what it is, however long they've lived without it.

No one forgets the truth, Frank. They just get better at lying.

['April']
Dialogue from Revolutionary Road (film)

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] I might say that no time can be more unfavourable to philosophy than that in which it is shamefully misused as a political means on the one hand, and as a means of livelihood on the other.

Now, if governments make philosophy the means to their political ends, then scholars see in professorships of philosophy a trade that nourishes the outer man just as does any other. They therefore crowd after them in the assurance of their good way of thinking, in other words, of the purpose or intention to serve those ends.

And they keep their word; not truth, not clarity, not Plato or Aristotle, but the aims and ends they were appointed to serve are their guiding star; and these at once become the criterion both of what is true, valuable, and worthy of consideration, and of its opposite.

Therefore whatever does not comply with these aims, be it even the most important and extraordinary thing in their department, is either condemned, or, where this seems precarious, suppressed by being unanimously ignored.

[...] How could philosophy, degraded to become a means of earning one's bread, generally fail to degenerate into sophistry? Just because this is bound to happen, and the rule "I sing the song of him whose bread I eat" has held good at all times, the making of money by philosophy was among the ancients the characteristic of the sophist.

[Arthur Schopenhauer]
The World as Will and Representation, p.xix, xx

................................................................................................................................................................................

"Mr Plichta, I have been in touch with Mr Mössbauer and told him that the two of us wanted to introduce him to something new, and that there was some need for caution in this regard. He wanted to know whether your discovery would raise doubts about quantum mechanics.

I told him that quantum mechanics would not even exist if what you discovered turned out to be true. Quantum mechanics would then simply turn out to be a figment of the imagination.

My colleague Mössbauer then got very angry and accused me of putting everything we have accomplished at risk. 

Our great achievement, modern physics, was the result of tremendous efforts, and now everything would collapse should any doubts arise.

Such people as yourself should not be given support under any circumstances. He refuses to meet you. He does not even want to hear of any of the new ideas. He gave me a very serious warning indeed"

[Peter Plichta]
God's Secret Formula
 
................................................................................................................................................................................


I don't care if my house is built on shaky foundations.

I have invested a lot of time and money in building it, and I am very comfortable living within it. I do not even want to hear your thoughts about its foundations.


................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Vessel and Cargo | 3. Fetishism and Commerce
Sell Out
Open Source
Structural Integrity
High Stakes
The Mature Individual
Go Your Own Way
[Anonymous]
Only Playing
A Higher Power
Individual + Villager = Balance
The Role of Charities
A Healthy Body 

Men of Firm Purpose

Is there a limit to man's power? Why can a man's fist break a stone which cannot be broken with an iron hammer? Strength itself is not the answer.

One day I visited Shohkakuji Temple in Nagasaki. The old priest of this temple is the one who had learned the art of Chinese Karate and Zen. This old priest showed me a part of his training practices during my visit. What I saw there was a scene almost dreadful to behold. He put some oil around his hand and thrust it with a yell, into boiling water in a big pot hung over the hearth.

As I was watching it in surprise, he slowly counted from one to ten and pulled his hand out of the boiling water quickly. "Look at my hand." He showed me his hand with a smile; it was not only not scalded but had undergone no change whatsoever. I could never forget the words he mentioned, "You can do anything if you will. Only act with self-confidence."

Man's mental power is great; his body supported by this great power is mysterious beyond solution by science. As far as there actually exists a priest who could calmly put his hand into boiling water [...] it moves our mind as a believable example of the greatness of man's mental power.

The essence of Karate, therefore, is nothing else than a training of mind over body. This is why Karate, capable of such power, should not be used wrongly or violently. The art of Karate seeks for something deeper than simple physical cultivation.

I have tested the limit of possibility for human strength using Karate. As a result of it I have found out that I can easily break thirty piled roof tiles, two red bricks or a two-inch thick square board with one stroke. I can also break a stone weighing over twenty pounds. I have verified that the strength to do these which is called 'superhuman,' is developed by repeated training. And needless to say, it is mental power, surpassing physical strength, which is required for this severe training.

" [...] As the proverb goes, 'Temper the heated iron before it gets cold,' so train yourself in self-discipline before you grow older if you wish to be a great man." The Oriental Confucian maxim is: "First train one's self, manage a household, and then reign over a country." It is essential to train one's self if one wants to administer the affairs of state well.

"The really great man can only be produced through continuous heavy training."

I once had an ambition to become a good politician and after experiencing much doubt and suffering, realized the necessity for power over self. Today, as a man who studies and trains in the martial art of Karate, I feel keenly that a perfect man can be produced only through a combination of culture and physical training.

The affairs of state can only be well administered by the hands of a man self-disciplined mentally and physically. Miyamato Mushashi, a famous swordsman of olden times, once said, "Make yourself familiar with all sorts of martial arts; do not think of greediness, profit or life in tomorrow. Think of nothing but the victory or defeat of today."

There is another saying that a lion runs after a hare to the best of his ability. If a lion must try his best, how much more should the politicians and statesmen give their best to the country they serve.

One famous statesman of the Orient devoted himself to serving his nation without thinking of self-interest or distinction; he even refused to accept peerage and court rank [...] If the statesmen of our time could have such pure minds there would be no unsightly bribery or graft.

To sacrifice oneself, to be selfless, is most important. I believe that true soldiers, true men of martial art, are prepared to give their lives to their first cause, moral obligation - and real statesmen should have the same resolution.

When I, as a man of martial accomplishment in sports, consider my fatherland, Korea, I earnestly believe that a mental revolution of Korean youth is a more burning need of the hour than industrial revolution and cultural elevation.

What is this mental revolution? My expression may sound a little too formal but the mental revolution I conceive of envisions Korean youths who do not try to promote their country simply by ideology or because of their desire for political power. They seek integrity and mental strength through physical training in order to become men of firm purpose to take charge of the future of their fatherland.

Cultivation of character is necessary for this purpose, and both physical and mental training are required to cultivate character [...] Only young men with integrity gained through self-discipline such as comes from the spirit of martial accomplishments can take charge of their country.

[...] I should like to propose the salvation of Korea by human nature trained in this self-denying spirit. I hope that young men of my fatherland will try to gain the self-discipline of mind and body inherent in the martial art of Karate so that the country may be restored to its rightful stature.

[...] It is the mission of us all to give our best efforts for country and for mankind.

[Mas Oyama]
What is Karate?, p.19, 119, 121, 128-30

Related posts:-
Walk a Straight Line
Budo
The Sublime Character
Leading By Example

Budō

Budō is a compound of the root bu, meaning war or martial; and dō, meaning path or way. Specifically, dō is derived from the Buddhist Sanskrit mārga (meaning the "path" to enlightenment).

The term refers to the idea of formulating propositions, subjecting them to philosophical critique and then following a 'path' to realize them.

Dō signifies a "way of life". Dō in the Japanese context, is an experiential term, experiential in the sense that practice (the way of life) is the norm to verify the validity of the discipline cultivated through a given art form. The modern budō has no external enemy, only the internal enemy, one's ego that must be fought.

Wikipedia
Budō

Related posts:-
I Found a Reason
Walk a Straight Line

A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] the banal everyday makes banal demands upon our patience, our devotion, perseverance, self-sacrifice; and for us to fulfil these demands (as we must) humbly and without courting applause through heroic gestures, a heroism is needed that cannot be seen from the outside.

[Carl Jung]
The Essential Jung, p.154

[...] unless we admit that we are not, and never will be, born equal, though we are all born with equal rights; unless the Many can be educated out of their false assumption of inferiority and the Few out of their equally false assumption that biological superiority is a state of existence instead of what it really is, a state of responsibility - then we shall never arrive at a more just and happier world.

[John Fowles]
The Aristos, p.10

................................................................................................................................................................................

Watching The U.S. Versus John Lennon I was struck by how often Lennon would "lose it". These were moments in which his act faltered, in which he was returned to 'all too human' form.

Whilst Lennon had always been a communicator through his music, his political activities required him to become a communicator of a different sort. The gravity of the messages he wanted to convey required a certain type of act. The act of "pop star" or "musician" wouldn't fit the bill. To communicate a message of love and peace, Lennon had to assume an archetypal role, to walk in the footsteps of others who have carried a similar message: names like Jesus, Buddha, and Gandhi, amongst others. Part of the reason why we hold these figures in such high regard is that they managed to stand the strain of the act that was required from them; indeed, they acted so well that we may even begin to forget that they were only human.

We are all, in a sense, acting. In fact, we could say that it is our ability to act, amongst other things, that makes us human. Animals generally cannot, or do not, act. A shark will not decide to 'better itself' by becoming a vegetarian, nor will a gazelle decide to 'be a man' and stand up for itself the next time a lion comes calling. The idea that we can be something other appears to be a distinctly human one, an upshot of our ability to imagine. In imagining we are able to think of alternate ways of being, ways that may often seem to contradict the image that our 'natural impulses' would hold us to. We imagine that we can be 'better', and in being better we must act. But this act needn't seem false. It is put on, and necessarily so: through putting it on we are able to craft ourselves, remould our basic image into the shape we want it to be. It is in this way that we become 'human'.

Thus, it is often when the act slips that we describe someone as being 'an animal.' In being an animal we fail to be human (which, from an animal's perspective is probably for the best. But from ours it is a slip, a regression). If we have a dim view of humanity then we may describe someone as being 'all too human.' Both descriptions concern a failure to maintain the act; the act of 'human' or 'something more than human.'

As a collective we have various structures in place to help us maintain the act. Laws remind us of the basics, and conventions and etiquette help us to tweak and refine our performance. Some people seem to be able to act better than others, and some acts seem to be worth more than others. Our collectivity offers us models that we can follow, and some of these seem harder than others. Buddhism, for example, proposes for the Westerner a truly difficult act, asking us to relinquish the sovereignty of our ego and to see through the idea of the "self." It's act eventually becomes a non-act; "enlightenment" a seeing-through of the act (or does the Dalai Lama still need to fight his instinctual urges? Does he still need to act?).

Maintaining the act involves a constant remembering. To stay on course may necessitate constant minor adjustments, because we all forget the way from time to time.

Lennon's act was a hard one. His message of love and peace posed a challenge to a Western society in thrall to the ego and entrenched in patriarchal values: rationalism, practicality, logic. Like those who exemplified his role in the past, he came under fire, and his act was truly put to the test. We see a number of these moments in the documentary. At one point Lennon is asked an irksomely earnest and 'ignorant' question by a reporter, to which he replies with an amusingly ironic quip. Another moment finds him being patronised by a woman from the New York Times, and he reacts with visible frustration and yet more irony.

We sense that he had to face a number of these moments, and his lack of patience becomes obvious. Of course, Lennon was only human, and we cannot blame him for letting the act slip. After all, it would take a truly exceptional person to carry - to live - the message of peace and love through these trying situations. But unfortunately this exceptionality is what his act required from him. When watching these moments I find myself wondering, how would the Dalai Lama handle that reporter? How would Gandhi have reacted to being patronized?

It seemed that Lennon was not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for him to fulfill his role, which brings us to ask: did he understand the implications of the act that was required from him in the first place? Or was he simply not up to the task?

The way Lennon handles himself in these situations displays a crucial difference between him and the likes of the Dalai Lama or Gandhi. He is too quick to become defensive, to raise his shield and protect his self. As soon as he does this he enters into a battle and his ability to communicate is curtailed - an opposition is created, a situation that makes neither party amenable to the other. This self-protectiveness seems to indicate that Lennon was too entrenched, or attached, to his position; too attached to the idea of "John Lennon." To be a truly great communicator it seems that we must be able to abandon our position when needed, and we do this as a sacrifice to the Other, and to the whole. We do whatever it takes to keep open the lines of communication. When Lennon was tempted into ironic remarks, to taking up the gauntlet of a battle, he forgot the duty that his role demanded of him. In these moments he was thinking of himself, not of the Other.

If we consider Lennon's perspective an enlightened one, then his frustration often seemed to be due to the sheer amount of ignorance that his role forced him to come into contact with. He was trying to communicate an enlightened message, but was thwarted by a lack of understanding, or, in many instances, an unwillingness to understand, or to even listen. It seems an inevitable outcome of this scenario that he should develop an "us vs them" attitude (in fact, Lennon probably already had this attitude from quite early on; he talks about trouble in school, about always seeming to be on the outside).

And yet, if we consider ourselves to be in any way "enlightened" and others to be ignorant, and if we care about the well-being of the whole, then perhaps we have a responsibility to those who we consider less fortunate than ourselves. If we are attempting to communicate a message of enlightenment, a message that we expect to bring positivity to the community, then is it not our duty, not only to the collectivity but to the message itself, to put the idea of communication first, and to serve the message in whatever it demands?

If we are 'enlightened' then is it not an abuse of our privilege to gain a laugh at the expense of the 'ignorant,' or to engage them in a battle? Likewise, we may become frustrated, but it is our duty to prevent our frustration from spilling over into anger and acrimony, and from polluting our good intentions.

Comedian Bill Hicks frequently alludes to an "us vs them" divide in his routines; he is enlightened - he knows good music, and sees through the hypocrisy of much of modern life - and if we are with him, if we see this too, then we are also enlightened. We are a part of "us" and we probably know who "they" are all too well. But there is a subtle form of arrogance running through this "us vs them-ism." Hicks doesn't appear to equate enlightenment with responsibility. His frustration at the ignorance of others is palpable, and we sense that he feels compelled to use his enlightenment as a weapon, perhaps as much to defend himself as to attack others. As with Lennon, he seems to feel that his position needs to be protected, and his routines become a form of pre-emptive attack. The underlying narrative is a battle, and Hicks is first and foremost interested in the sovereignty of his own position before the well-being of the whole.

Whilst we oppose those who are unenlightened, there will always be a divide across which communication fails, an us vs them situation. If we believe ourselves to be enlightened, and if we want to communicate a message - a message that we believe is of benefit to the collectivity - then we must consider the responsibility that these things demand of us. If we preach an enlightened message whilst undermining it through our words and actions, then we are doing no more than playing a game; a game that has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, the us vs. them. Our games allow us to declare that the emperor has no clothes, as long as we don't then chop off his head.

Of course, we may often be interested in no more than game-playing, and this may well be the case for Hicks. His us vs. them-ism is a cornerstone of his humour, and without it his act probably would have been very different; or, indeed, may not have existed at all. With Lennon things seem to be different - he ostensively set out to communicate a message as far and wide as possible, and it would be a betrayal to this message to find that he was, if only unconsciously, playing a game. As with Lennon, our act may demand that we go beyond our games, and if we believe in the act then must listen to it, and do whatever it takes to remain true to the role.

Related posts:-
The Larger Mind

Playing With Your Self

................................................................................................................................................................................


Serious                              -                      Playful
Solid                                 -                       Liquid
Actuality                           -                       Potentiality
Closed                               -                      Open
Rest                                   -                      Motion


................................................................................................................................................................................


We realize that what we like and what our tastes are don’t necessarily define the spirit of what we truly are deep down inside. And that we should have fun with our tastes.

Those pursuits—searching out songs, finding out about artists, or just experiences that entertain us, that delight us — that’s what makes life fun and worth living.

And I want us to remember how playful that should be. And the minute it starts to hold us back or feel stressful, or that we have to cling too hard to any one idea of ourselves, it’s just good to step back and kind of remember that it’s all just supposed to be fun. So I guess that means to not take things too seriously.

[Andrew WK]


................................................................................................................................................................................


In the organizational context, Nevis saw resistance to change--for example, someone's refusing to "join in"--as an expression of the differentiation of opposites (polar differentiation) [...]

Seeing this resistance as an inner conflict - rather than just seeing the loner as being obstinate - the Gestalt practitioner has something to work with [...]

One could, for example, ask the individual to experiment with what it feels like to move in the direction of one pole or the other. In so doing, he can begin to see his resistance as a matter of choices, and become aware that he is being pulled in different directions by opposing (and equally valid) needs.

[Herb Stevenson]
'Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change'


................................................................................................................................................................................

Do you believe you can know yourselves if you don't somehow construct yourselves? ... We can only know what we succeed in giving form to.

Ah, you believe only houses are constructed? I construct myself continually and I construct you, and you do the same.

And the construction lasts as long as the material of our feelings doesn't crumble and as long as the cement of our will lasts.

Why do you believe firmness of will is so highly touted, and constancy of feelings? The former has only to waver a little, and the latter has only to be altered by one degree or change ever so slightly, and it's goodbye to our reality! We realize immediately that it was only our delusion.

Firmness of will, then. Constancy of feelings. Hang on, hang on, to avoid these plunges into the void, to keep from encountering these unwelcome surprises.

But, oh! what fine constructions result.

[Luigi Pirandello]
One, No One & One Hundred Thousand, p.41, 42


................................................................................................................................................................................


Sickness, in Pirandello as in many other great writers, is experienced as a situation in which all automatic behavior is suspended and the perceptive faculties, outside of the normal rules, seem to expand and see "with other eyes".

'One, No one and One Hundred Thousand'


................................................................................................................................................................................


Related posts:-
The Colour Wheel
Sailing the Turbulent Seas
The Oak and the Stream
Walk a Straight Line
Incursions of the unknown 
Hold it Still
Don't commit to it
Shedding Skin 
Status Quo
Satisfying Narratives
Guiding Fiction
Creative Partnerships
Do Not Disturb 
Break-down
A Safe Space 

Close to Extraordinary

We use [extraordinary people] as they are always used by a culture: to inspire ordinary lives by displaying their own potentialities.

Extraordinary people excite; they guide they warn; standing, as they do, in the corridors of imagination - statues of greatness, personifications of marvel and sorrow - they help us carry what comes to us as it came to them. They give our lives an imaginary dimension.

That's what we look for when buying biographies and reading the secret intimacies of the famous, their luck, their errors, their gossip.  

Not to pull them down to our level, but to lift ours, making our world less impossible through familiarity with theirs.

Without these exemplars of the daimon we have no other category of the extraordinary except diagnostic psychopathology.

These personifications of heightened imagination burn right into the soul and are its teachers. Not only the hero and hero-worship, but tragic figures too, beauties and comics and crones and handsome leading men.

[James Hillman]
The Soul's Code: In Search of Character and Calling, p.32

................................................................................................................................................................................

Extraordinary people are extreme people, and in this sense they show us our own potentialities. How red can red be? Let me show you the red-est thing that exists, and then you will see what is possible.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Uses of Heroes | Introduction
Local Hero
Guiding Fiction
Imagine something better

Towards a tender society

People often asked how I'm able to entice random strangers into working with me on art projects about their own lives. The answer is that I appear to actually be interested in the person and his or her activities. And what is the best strategy for appearing interested? The answer is to sincerely be interested in fact nothing else will work. This is not difficult for me, because I actually think that people are interesting. I would even go so far as to say that I have a great fondness for the human race.

This wasn't always the case; as a child and adolescent, I was extremely shy and preferred to stay clear of most people. Dogs, books, and cheeses were all preferable companions to me. When, later in life, I decided to become a participant in society, I realized that I had no social skills for constructively engaging with people. Small talk had always made me feel dead inside, so that wasn't going to work. Instead, I decided to actively push conversations in the direction of "bigger talk."

I asked people real questions about their lives, their work, their histories, their favorite foods, etc. Sometimes this was perceived as invasive, but I tried to be very sensitive. I became an increasingly capable listener and asker of related follow-up questions. As a result, my social self has been very intentionally constructed. This isn't as bad as it might seem, though. I think everyone's social (and personal) selves are constructed, just not usually very consciously.

Through asking strangers questions, I have learned to have more meaningful interactions with people outside of my work--friends, family, neighbors, even people at art openings, sometimes. I try to be willing to discuss subjects that are really important in my life, too. When my sister died last summer, I talked with several people about it (sometimes people I didn't know very well) and found out that most of them had also faced death in some way. It was very comforting, and it caused me to believe that people in general have the ability to relate to all sorts of things, if they are given the chance.

Since I've been paying attention, it's become incredibly obvious how few meaningful questions people ask each other. I recommend that people try a little harder. How much do you really know about the people who you encounter on a daily basis? Try asking these people what they really care about. Show them that you are truly interested. Perhaps it will rub off on them, and they will ask you a question back. Whole complex conversations might ensue. You'll learn things from each other, trust and honesty could develop --the world (and the art world with it) might become a better place.

[Harrell Fletcher]

Related posts:-
The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule

And so you have a choice like what do I wanna do, how cool do I want to be, what do I wanna be like.

And all I thought was 'how would I want someone to be to me?'

I didn't think, 'What would be the coolest way to be? What's gonna be easier, or harder, or better, or worse?' I just thought like, well my favourite band, if I was going to see them, what would I be psyched about? What would make me happy if my favourite band did that?

Essentially the golden rule, which doesn't just apply to music or bands or anyone in that position, to everyone, whether you're working at a grocery store or a bank or you're a mom or a dad or a brother or going to school or whatever it's just following that rule.

[Andrew WK]

Related posts:-
Towards a tender society

Being Brave

I don't want to go and do 'Liar' again, because I can do it very well. I can probably sing it better now than when I wrote it. You're better at it when you get old, in a way. You get grey and then you get good. But what would that say about me?

The braver thing to do is that which makes me unsure ... It sounds corny, but I spend hours agonising over what is the bravest thing I can do.

I have to find reasons to get up in the morning. I have to keep finding new summits, new things to climb.

I'm continually looking at ways to stick it to the man. That sounds corny, but I love that term.

[Henry Rollins]

Related posts:-
Healthy Risks