From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: And over to you, Sean. (a mixed bag of stuffs)
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<1993Jan20.142119.10405@ac.dal.ca> <fYgQcuU@quack.sac.ca.us> 
	<1993Jan22.181606.10475@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 24 Jan 1993 03:04:15 UTC

In article <1993Jan22.181606.10475@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>> And what is art?
>>>I think good art is best described by the old Zen phrase: a finger pointing
>>>at the moon. Bad art points back to samsara, so to speak.
>> Beauty in the eye of the beholder. 
>I dunno. Obviously this is true to a certain degree. My field (English
>literature) is really built on the notion that there is such thing as
>objective quality in art, post-structuralist criticism notwithstanding.
>Now that I think of it, this is just stupid, to say that something
>has objective quality. Maybe what art criticism is about then, is the 
>judgement of art according to certain shared standards of value. 
>My standard of value, then, is: does a work of art point into or out of
>illusion? 

Point in to or out of illusion - in the eye of the beholder.

>>>>Is art secular or sacred or all of the above? 
>>>>Is what we do secular or sacred or all of the above?
>>>Who was it that said that if a Buddha treads on a stone, that's a more
>>>pious act than if an unawakened person recites sutras all their life? 
>>>It's all a matter of perspective, eh?"Secular" and "sacred" are distinctions
>>>that have meaning only from the "secular" point of view, as I understand
>>>these terms. 
>> They are a pair of opposites from the field of opposites. Put them
>> together and you can see the unity.
>Can you explain what you mean when you say "put them together?"

It's really a figure of speach, but doesn't it make sense that if there
is a "one", then it is the union of all the pairs of opposites, not some
at the exclusion of others? There is a secular and a sacred viewpoint.
Is one right while the other is wrong? Or are both right and wrong, at
the same time? Is there a sense of truth in the union that is not there
in either opposite alone? What can a sacred person know of the secular
world and what can a secular person know of the sacred world, unless the
two are one, one and the same?
 
>> But we are back to feed the fire or
>> quench the fire. Do Europeans feed the fire or quench the fire?
>I notice this is an expression you use fairly often. What are you getting
>at when you talk about "feeding/quenching the fire?"

This is a decision each must make in life. Life feeds on life and thus
creates or constantly recreates - *death.* Life/Death are a classic pair
of opposites, one can not exist without the other. Death creates the
stuff that life is made of, out of life. It is a snake feeding on
itself. Life without death is dead. Death without life is dead. There is
only one constant and that is change. One could say this Life/Death pair
is a fire, a fire of joy and a fire of sorrow. From the Mahabharata,
Buck translation, Yudhishthira is questioned by the lake of unquenchable
thirst (knowledge): Lake: "What is the greatest wonder of all?" Yudhi:
"Every day Death takes lives beyond counting, yet those who live think:
*Death can never come this day to me.*" This is a fire, a fire of great
joy and great sorrow, a fire that brings new life by clearing away the
old life. The only question remaining is if one should feed this fire or
quench it. The Jains are probably the best fire quenchers. Buddha was
probably the best fire feeder as he returned to the human existance to,
as he put it, joyfully participate in the sorrows of the world.
 
>>>> How is [cultural] decline measured?
>>>One way I measure it is by comparing things like "Black Elk Speaks"
>>>with what I hear modern Indians saying. I think that to a large
>>>degree, modern Indians have lost a feeling for the attitudes that
>>>were the original foundation for their culture. Of course, my experience
>>>in this realm is pretty limited, and I don't want to overstate my
>>>confidence in this judgement.
>> Black Elk was a great man, a prophet. To compare Black Elk to the
>> average modern Native is to compare Shakespeare to the average modern
>> Anglo.
>An excellent point. You are probably right -- but I still can't help
>thinking that a person raised on tv, a mix of Catholicism and 
>vestigial traditional religion, and living in a modern city, is bound
>to lack a feeling for the attitudes of nomadic hunters and gatherers. 
>I would think you would have to work very hard to acquire a sensitivity
>to the ancient mythos, at least as hard as a modern Anglo has to work
>to acquire some sensitivity for the myth that became institutional 
>Christianity.

Sure, of this there can be little doubt, but it is the answer to the
question: Who am I, where did I come from and where am I going? For an
authentic individual to lead an authentic life is a sword edge, a path
never trod before, a great difficulty. The easy way is to slip into the
abyss of authentic people leading inauthentic lives, the wasteland. I'm
paraphrasing Aldous Huxley here with the addition of trod, a rastafari
term. You could probably tell by now that I like to mix-it-up.

>> If this is decline, who is at fault? Given the post-Columbian
>> treatment of Natives, such a decline of culture may be understandable, but
>> why cultural decline of Anglos? What is this sickness that plagues the
>> land?
>I think we are living in a culture of decadence, and I don't mean to be
>moralistic...just that it seems to be a pattern that successful cultures
>get complacent. They lose their edge. New generations 
>become more interested in enjoying the fruits of their parents' success 
>than in doing the work necessary to consolidate the gains of their ancestors. 
>It took hundreds of years for this process to bring Rome down, but 
>everything seems to happen faster in dese modern timez.

It could be that culture only mirrors life, sun goes up and sun goes
down. New culture is built on the ruins of old. Perhaps just more
dharma.

>>>>>> So, there will be no unity of unity until all humans are
>>>>>> dead.
>>>>>Maybe! You know, I sometimes wonder if this isn't the route an eventual
>>>>>world peace will follow. Assuming we don't kill ourselves off, a few
>>>>>hundred more years of mass culture might turn the whole world into
>>>>>one big homogeneous glob,a planet of people who all like the same tv shows,
>>>>>eat the same Big Macs and wear the same Benetton clothes. Even
>>>>>"expressions of individuality" can be subsumed into the mass, viz.
>>>>>the assimilation of rap music into the cultural mainstream. 
>>>> Look to India. They have been trying for unity of diversity for some two
>>>> thousand years, perhaps more. Are they closer or farther? Is it
>>>> achievable or only a goal whose joy is to be found only in the
>>>> journey?
>>>I think it might be achievable over a long period of time by the use
>>>of sophisticated propaganda. Have you ever read Aldous Huxley's "Brave
>>>New World?"
>> Sophisticated propaganda? That's what religion is. That's what Zoroaster
>> and many other prophets have tried to do. Not easy, not easy.
>Hmm... I think that is what religion has _become_, but not what it is
>supposed to be.

What do you think religion is supposed to be?

>It's totally different from what was done until the invention of 
>the movie, television, and the artficial satellite. Mass communication in the
>hands of a wealthy culture of individualistic hedonism: all the rules are
>changed.

The rules are changed. Perhaps new religions and mythologies will arise
as well?

>I think the process has already begun, for better or for worse.
>The "Brave new World" was heaven for most, after all!
>But Hell for a few, the ones humanity used to consider its best.
>Redundant in a world where the drives that are the sole motivators
>of most of humanity are gratified instantly and at will, 
>they will be eliminated or shipped off. But we'll probably all die of
>skin cancer before any of this happens. 

Does this elevate Aldous Huxley to the status of prophet?

>> Only an
>> application of new technology. Does seem likely though, too bad really.
>> Bring on Shiva, the destroyer of worlds, and we will start again. Maybe
>> the idea of a golden age in the future is wrong. Maybe we have made hell
>> out of what was heaven.
>I think we really have. The ultimate wasted opportunity. The story of 
>humanity is the most profound tragedy imaginable. We have traded eternity
>for a mess of pottage. 
>As Kurt Vonnegut says: So it goes. 

As Kali in male form says to Kali in female form, as they begin the
dance of the dance, the song of songs: Shall we recreate the world?
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc