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>
Date: 21 Jan 1993 22:08:40 UTC

In article <1993Jan20.142119.10405@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <fYbRd#T@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan19.005302.10351@ac.dal.ca> hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>This is a real problem, I agree. (!) Still, though, if you let people
>>>talk enough, you can usually tell pretty much where their head is. 
>>>I sometimes think a joke is the _best_ test of true communication. If two
>>>people genuinely laugh at the same joke, they understand each other
>>>for that instant, methinks. 
>> Aha! Understand what? That instant is it! Make it last.
>It's an interesting question: what is it they are understanding, when we say 
>"they understand each other?" I'm not at all sure.

To label *it* would be a violation of *its* unboundedness. Is that a word?
Anyway, why not call *it* the European rose, by any other name *it* would
smell as sweet. [Or call *it* conscience, the unity of diversity] Thank
you Miss Rosa, you are the spark, that started our freedom movement,
thank you Sister Rosa Parks.

>> 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. 

>> 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. This is probably one of the easiest
pairs to put together, for most. Most Native Americans see them as one
and the same. Most Europeans do not, how else can you explain the
disrespect of the land, sea and air? But we are back to feed the fire or
quench the fire. Do Europeans feed the fire or quench the fire?

>> Is the grail have empty or half full? Does it make a difference?
>I see it as an interesting manifestation of human difference that people
>go varying ways with this stuff. I'm glad that Mallarme was Mallarme
>and not Blake, and that Blake was Blake and not Chaucer, etc. 

So, diversity is good, correct? Something sacred?

>> Of course what you are really describing is a Zen rock garden. Do
>> you have one?
>In my better moments, one might say. "Taming the ox" is a long process,
>I'm finding.

You answer well. Perhaps the best Zen rock garden is the one of the
mind. Does a pilgrim have to go to Benares to get to Benares, to Mecca
to get to Mecca, to Jerusalem to get to Jerusalem, to Nara to get to
Nara, to Boston to get to Boston? Black Elk said the central mountain is
known by us as Harney Peak, South Dakota, - but the central mountain is
everywhere.
 
>>>The "positive" approach makes a person sound like a total lunatic or
>>>a kitschmeister, while the "negative" approach makes a person sound like the
>>>most ruthless cynic alive. One works through appealing to the listeners'
>>>(perhaps latent) love of "the light," while the other works by 
>>>appealing to the listeners' hatred of "the darkness." Tomato, tomatoe?
>> This is kind of like the Persian Duality of Zoroaster.
>Although I am unsure about Zoroaster, I really think that Jesus was
>using this kind of language in precisely the metaphoric way I tried
>to here. Jesus took the "positive" approach. The only reason people
>didn't think he was a lunatic is because they were lunatics themselves,
>and took his apparent lunacy in the most legalistic way possible. 

There is Persian Duality (Zoroastrianism) in Christianity. And of
course, Nietzsche's Zarathustra is Jesus, or Zoroaster, or Unity of
Diversity. Luke 14:26 comes to mind, for some strange reason. Lunacy? No
way, it must be some sort of complicated legal code. The follower sees
what the follower wants to see, the student learns what the student
wants to learn, when the student is ready the teacher will appear, no
doubt with the message: "Follow me and be Free!"

>> The wild card is the technology of communication. In Bob Marley's time,
>> half the story had never been told. In our time, all the stories are
>> being told. There is a flood of worldwide communication. Propaganda is
>> falling, for now. But the technology of communication is a wild card.
>> Hard to say how the hands will play out.
>This is something I haven't thought about. One thing makes me uneasy,
>though. I once read a fascinating book called "How to Stop a War,"
>published by an American strategic studies think-tank, I believe.
>It contained a detailed study of every war involving >1000 deaths since
>the American Revolution.  The scholars tried to isolate any patterns
>that seemed to arise from a comparative study of these wars. They
>conclude by offering a list of rules that seem to govern the instigation,
>carrying-out, and ending of wars. One of the ones that struck me is:
>"Good fences make good neighbours."  That is, history seems to show that
>the more direct contact there is between two cultures, the greater the 
>likelihood of large-scale violence. 
>Here in Canada, the government has been pursuing a policy of official
>multiculturalism for about 20 years. That is to say, Canada has _no_
>official culture -- its culture is officially a "mosaic" of all the
>little cultures within the country. This stands in opposition to the
>American "melting pot" model of national cultural identity. 

The same is true in the US, there is no melting pot. Of this most of us
are in denial. What is the national cultural indentity of the US? The TV
show Dallas? 90210?

>Everyone is Canada is encouraged to practise their own culture, but
>this policy is coming to be seen as a bad one. Increased contact
>between different cultural groups seems mainly to produce increased
>friction. I myself have come close to being murdered as a result of
>official multiculturalism -- i.e. some Arab immigrants offered to
>practise some of the less savoury aspects of their "diversity" upon
>my mortal frame as a result of their feeling justified in applying
>cultural standards born in the Arabian desert to life in urban
>Canada. This kind of thing just keeps happening more and more. 
>The country is ready to break up because of this policy -- within
>a few years, there may be no "Canada."  What do you think of all this?

A new day is dawning. The US may also break up due to ethnic tension.
Canada has French and English, the US has English and Spanish, and on it
goes. This was coined "The Fourth World" by someone I don't remember. The
worlds we have right now are military nation states. In a time of war,
Canada for example is united, either for or against the US. But beyond
war, what then? What is the purpose of nation states? You are you and I
am I, what does it mean that we are citizens of different states,
different countries? We are of different cultures, that is something
that is always there, call it diversity. But what does it mean if I pay
taxes to Washington and you pay taxes to Ottawa? The cold war is dead,
there is no longer a purpose for the first versus the second world,
there is no longer a need for the great US military-industrial complex.
A new day is dawning. In the words of Rodney King, "Can we all just get
along?"

>> 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. 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 judge this to be a wasteland of authentic individuals leading
>>>> inauthentic lifes, but am I really the judge of such things? I am not a
>>>> number, I am a free man. I am not the one.
>>>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>>What does this mean?
>> So, who is
>> in charge, who is number one? I know it is not me, is it you? Is it the
>> naked ape? Are we each in charge? Are we each number one? What is the
>> one? That of course is the transcendent conscience, is it not?
>I thought it was the Trilateral Commission...:)  Seriously, though,
>is that what you mean? That you're not in charge on this planet?
>That seems fair enough. 

All right, then that must be what I mean. [Trilateral Commision]
 
> Re: Psychoanalyzing Steve Adams (forgive us, Steve!)
>>> Rather than say "free WILL," let's just say that
>>>Steve is _free_ to make that decision if he wants to. But what he wants
>>>is not something he can help. See the distinction? This may seem like
>>>over-subtletly, but it's a distinction I want to stick to. 
>> Of course you would. That is the "you" of "you."
>Well, I think I am making a genuine point, not merely indulging a
>desire for self-expression. 

One and the same, am I not correct?

>>>> The only option for getting along is to recognize
>>>> the beauty of diversity in all of us, as the French would say, Vive la
>>>> difference!
>>>This will never happen, alas. Never. The essence of the cultural identity
>>>is _differentiation_ based on relative value. That is: I am different
>>>from you, ergo I am better than you. 
>> I am not me to be better than you. I am me to be me! Your culture is of
>> course superior to mine, I don't care. That is you speaking for you. My
>> culture is good for me and no good for you. That is me speaking. Or is it?
>People don't think this way, though. They not only want to be "themselves,"
>they want what they "are" to be _good_. Good only has meaning in relation
>to bad. If I am going to be good, if my country is going to be good, then  
>someone else, someone else's country, has to be bad. 

Ah yes, the trouble with dogma. And why is it that things that are
supposed to be so good end up so bad and things that are supposed to be
so bad end up so good? That's what Lulu from Wild at Heart would like to
know. And also, why is everyone wild at heart but crazy on top? And why
is that doG always barking, oh but he does remind you of Toto, doesn't
he? Brothers and Sisters, let me share with you some news, as I sit on my
plush couch watching the news, I have become aware of a rude awakening,
that I have marched until my feet have bleed and I have protested until
they called the Feds, what's left my *conscious* says, what's left my
*conscious* says? Go! [Arrested Development: Revolution]

>>>> 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. What's
left my conscious says? [By the way, I have read all Huxley, though of
course a while ago. My favorite is Perennial Philosophy.]

>>> But what do you think of the "Big Mac"
>>>Theory of Eventual World Peace?
>> Won't happen. You can't force diversity together. It can only happen by
>> recognition of conscience. Perhaps this is a meta-dharma. If we were to
>> achieve it, what would be left to do then? To live? As a Human Being?
>A nice thought, but I can't see it happening that way. I suspect that
>the human problem is bred in the bone. I _can_ imagine highly sophisticated
>propaganda, over a period of generations, gradually homogenizing the
>world culturally. Combined with a "Brave New World" type genetics 
>program, widely available euphoria-producing drugs, and an efficient
>deviant-disposal program -- world peace is achievable, I suspect. 
>Not by force, but by insidious gentle persuasion. The worst kind of tyranny
>is the kind you _like_. 

And how is this different that what we have already done? Only an
application of new technology. Does seem likely though, to 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. Pessimism/Optimism just another pair of
opposites. Where does this field of opposites stop? It seems that
everywhere you turn, another pair appears, apparently. What's left my
conscious says? Humpty Dumpty sat on the wall and Humpty Dumpty had a
great fall. All the king's horses and all the king's men, couldn't put
Humpty back together again. Or could they?
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27666 alt.pagan:15909 alt.folklore.urban:34942