The Church, The State and the False Messiahs

 

 

Well, I rapped upon a house

With the U.S. flag upon display

I said, “Could you help me out

I got some friends down the way”

The man says, “Get out of here

I’ll tear you limb from limb”

I said, “You know they refused Jesus, too”

He said, “You’re not Him

 

-Bob Dylan (115^th Dream)

 

A few years ago I was, for a day, fascinated by the concept of false messiahs. I spent the day reading all that I could on the topic and discovered a new hero, my favourite false messiah- Moses of Crete.

 

Moses, a Jewish fellow, claimed that he was the messiah and to prove it he was going to walk from Crete to Israel. He set off down to the beach with a crowd of believers, curious onlookers and folks with nothing better to do, and set out. I wonder at what point his faith in himself started to waver, maybe when the water lapped over his sandals, maybe when his ankles got a tad chilly, maybe when it was when he had to lift his arms to wade through the water or maybe as he watched the bubbles escaping over his head. Ironically, Moses has sunk from history.

 

Everyone needs a messiah, even if it is their own self. The American Right rail against things that they do not like and cite the Bible as justification for their narrow mindedness and bigotry whilst ignoring the teachings of Christ (feed the hungry, clothe the poor, protect the meek, heal the sick (regardless of health insurance)) and I am sure that many of them are ignorant of the fact that we could quite pleasantly stone them to death for wearing a nice poly-blend shirt or stockings.

 

 

 

Watching The West Wing (created by Aaron Sorkin- a man whom I adore (The Newsroom, Sports Night etc, screenplays for the likes of Moneyball (after the Michael Lewis book), Steve Jobs– I’ve even (almost) forgiven him for the Academy Award winning screenplay for The Social Network (in his defence it was a film about Facebook)

 

 

DUSTIN (CONT’D)

(quietly)

There’s a girl in your art history class.

Her name is Stephanie Attis. Do you

happen to know if she has a boyfriend?

…

 

MARK

“Relationship Status”, “Interested In”.

(beat)

This is what drives life at college. Are

you having sex or aren’t you. It’s why

people take certain classes, and sit

where they sit, and do what they do…

…

 

EDUARDO

–get laid.

…

 

EDUARDO

That’s really good. (it’s really not but Mr Sorkin almost made it so))

 

 

as I do quite frequently (it is my ‘comfort viewing’- intelligent people trying to make the world a better place and having their a**** kicked- ah, real life) I found myself becoming frustrated.

 

It happens from time to time when I am watching something (or reading) and something occurs which, to me, just seems illogical. The latest was in an episode of The West Wing where the Democrats and the Republicans were arguing about school prayer. Yes you heard me correctly, school prayer. It seems that whether or not one takes a few minutes of the day to pray is something of national importance. Usually, not surprisingly given my own candy-a** Obama loving liberal leanings, I side with the Bartlett White House but this time I found myself lying on my back staring at the ceiling, the very picture of frustration, hand on head going ‘no, no, no!’ The issue raised was should there be prayer in school? Objections to this are quite obvious but stupid, essentially they do not want to impose religion upon children.

 

America is a country which clings to its religiosity and each political speech ends ‘God bless America’ as standard so one can see that people would want children to start the day by thanking God, as well as saluting the flag and saying the pledge of allegiance. Yet whilst the later two are considered important the former is seen as a violation of rights, First Amendment be damned!

 

The obvious thing here is that we are essentially saying that people should be able to impose their ideologies upon other people to prevent having the other ideologies imposed upon them. Yes, I did feel stupid writing that.

 

But who are these people of whom I speak? Well, you have the politicians, the Mary Marshes, who believe that religious values should be preached (no pun intended) in school- prayer, abstinence etc, and you have the Toby Zieglers who do not think that all children should be put in a position of being bullied due to sitting out of prayers. In terms of the Mary Marshes, whilst I believe that religion should have a great influence in politics, in terms of ethics and morality I do not believe that religious leaders should be able to make political demands (lobbying) yet it seems to me that the problem is quite obvious. Religion or no religion in schools is irrelevant. The children are not saying Amen and then turning to those next to them and saying ‘your amen was insincere’, rather it is the prejudices (on either side) of the parents which is being imposed.

 

Do I think that there should be religion in school? Absolutely! Children should learn of the Bible, the Qu’ran, the Book of the Dead. They should learn of these things for the underlying message of each book is love and forgiveness. They should learn about other cultures and other thoughts. They should learn about diversity and how, at heart, we are all the same. They should learn the importance of being in a union. Let’s leave the prejudices to the parents and politicians and treat our children with respect and let them decide what they believe in for themselves.

 

 

And in terms of prayer, it never hurt anyone to ask for help from a higher power

Let Us Sit Upon the Ground and Tell Sad Stories of the Death of Kings

 

 

I was recently reading a biography of Harry Truman, a man who could be considered to have committed either the most heinous or most humane act in human history. If one could travel through alternate timelines then one would be able to see if the bomb saved more or less lives, despite the conventional bombing of Tokyo having a higher death toll.

 

“The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius.” Thus spake the Wilde man Oscar. The validity of this I do not know, and I personally, tend to go the other way. The likes of Napoleon and Stalin, terrible men who committed genocide, fascinate me for their genius. In a book about meeting Stalin, Milovan Đilas speaks of how Stalin could change his mood at a whim depending on his affections and Napoleon, who once said ‘Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake’, a man who one could ask a hundred of his closest associates who he was and get a different answer, is agreed to have been a genius although the French cannot understand the occupation that he takes upon the minds of the non-French.

 

My first introduction to Napoleon was through the great Russians (Tolstoy, Dusty etc) and I was blown away by the fascination, awe and respect that they held for him even through he razed Moscow and was one bad winter, and the absurd plan of burning crops, away from conquering Russia (side note- of the ½ million that went to Russia anything from fifty to a thousand are said to have returned, one of them being Stendhal, his chef, who went on to become one of the tour-de-forces of French literature, unlike the 1866 Liechtenstein army who went to war with 80 men and came back with 81 having made a friend (an Austrian who was seeking work)).

 

Thomas Carlyle wrote of the ‘Great Man’ theory, hero worship, cult of the personality and maybe people like myself fall into this category, if I do or don’t is neither here nor there, what I think is worth considering is why these great and terrible men hold a fascination for us.

 

The easy answer is history. These are the people who shaped world events, even the world itself, (the current European Union an offshoot of the Treaty of Vienna written in response to Napoleon) and to have had the will and clarity of thought to make such decisions, (considering them the best thing to do from their own perspective) is staggering, (however there is the few like Marcus Aurelius who went around the world conquering through bloodshed whilst writing a book of meditations on the futility of war/death/etc…ummm…).

 

Arthur Schopenhauer devised a concept called ‘the will to power’ which went on to influence the philosophical thought of the likes of Wagner, Nietzsche, Sartre and Kant and is essentially one of the foundations of modern (19-21^st Century) existentialism (along with the likes of Dostoyevsky). The concept is essentially what is known as self-determinism, strength of will to create the world as one believes that it should be- the transition between what one believes the world ‘could be’ and ‘should be’. However, there needs to be a balance between the bloody mindedness (no pun intended) of the great and terrible monsters of history and the usual crop of leaders who make Hamlet seem like a zealot reactionary.

 

There are those, little Despots, who believe that they are, in themselves, the heirs to the terrible monsters but who lack, not only the genius, the vision but also the will to sit in a small room like Truman did on the 3^rd of August, 1945 and shape history and the world with his own hands leaving the judgement to posterity. But anyway,

 

No matter where; of comfort no man speak:

Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;

Make dust our paper and with rainy eyes

Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth,

Let’s choose executors and talk of wills:

…let us sit upon the ground

And tell sad stories of the death of kings;

How some have been deposed; some slain in war,

Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;

Some poison’d by their wives: some sleeping kill’d;

All murder’d: for within the hollow crown (eternity/history,

As fools would have you, are one and the same)

That rounds the mortal temples of a king

Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,

Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,

…Infusing him with self and vain conceit,

As if this flesh which walls about our life,

Were brass impregnable, and humour’d thus

…With solemn reverence: throw away respect,

Tradition, form and ceremonious duty,

(For they were once, but never to be again,

Our Kings)

 

 

 

Women’s Issues

 

There is one phrase that whenever I hear it, no matter how inappropriate, I have to fight the urge to giggle and that phrase is ‘women’s issues’. The sheer weight of contempt and insecurity that permutes that phrase, as though women are patronising themselves! It is as if women are a separate entity with issues which fall beyond the scope of human experience.

 

The most obvious ones seem to do with children and health, as though children and health fall under the purview of women only. In many cases of custody the bias falls towards the mother and it is considered that a ‘child needs a mother’ more than a father and consider employment law when it comes to maternity and paternity periods after childbirth.

 

Is this the case?

 

Let us consider the stereotypical notions of men and women. Women are kinder and more compassionate. Their leadership skills are built around integration and unity. Listening to discussions on the 2016 US Presidential nominations a specialist in the study of female leadership skills said that if Hillary Clinton banged on the table, like Bernie Sanders, she would not be seen as passionate, rather hysterical. Maybe, maybe not, but surely the ability to express your emotions and bring people together but not having to raise your voice and hit things is a greater quality?

 

Contrary to this the stereotypical male leadership style can be best shown through an analogy of the gym. Men go to the gym and they pick things up and then put them down again then they pick them up again and then put then down again before turning to the person next to them and bragging ‘I picked it up ten times and put it down again!’ to which the other person should reply ‘o, were you moving boxes? Was it something useful?’ but instead replies ‘wow! You’re the man!’ Indeed. Afterwards they go home and watch sport and then say ‘look what we did?’ hmm, you made all the difference there.

 

But why do women seemingly have such a negative view of themselves? I was reading papers on the psychological impact of the legacy of slavery. In some cases it seems that many descendants feel they have something to prove or feel resentment (understandably) to how their forefathers were treated. From this it seems that there has stemmed a feeling of inadequacy and a need to prove one’s self. This, regardless of context, can be used in a positive or negative manner but the primary use seems to be negative. Pseudo-feminist stand up and hypocritically declare ‘men think they are so great but we are better than they are’ not realising that by doing so they are abandoning any possibility of moral superiority and they come across as seeming impotent. A true feminist would say ‘we are all equal (fundamentally) and whilst there are obvious biological differences we should be treated the same at the core’.

 

Immanuel Kant became the darling of the feminists when he said that marriage is a prerequisite for sexual intercourse. Kant never married and for possibly the only time ever I have taken an interest in another person’s sex life for if Kant was true to his concept then he would truly be a great man. Kant understood that things have deeper meanings which underscore them and should be the basis for them.

 

The great secret that every man knows, but very few will admit, is that women are superior in every sense that matters. History has shown that men generally excel in certain aspects- art, literature, philosophy and so forth (before anyone starts shouting that I don’t read women authors I am a big fan of Erica Jong (kidding) but in all seriousness there are female writers, singers whom I adore- Françoise Hardy, Nico, Carson McCullers and Françoise Sagan my favourites) but in terms of the tangible (structuring etc) and metaphysical (affection etc) women are superior but people don’t seem to remove themselves from the battleground notion of gender politics and look for more unity, focusing rather on the differences not the similarities.

 

Society is the manifestation of the male inferiority complex so maybe we should have a matriarchal society, put the women in charge, then a) things will get better, b) things will be worse c) things will be the same and then, when presented with this empirical data (hello Immanuel), people will be able to go ‘best person for the job, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexuality or any of the other arbitrary constructs which dominate far too much of our thinking, should be in charge’ for these are not women’s issues, they are issues that affect us one and all.

 

The Private Lives of Others

 

I was recently reading a paper that Freud wrote about Dostoyevsky in which Fraud (who never met Dusty (Dusty-Toy-Vest-Key- ah the little things…) and who refused to read his books as the characters created were too realistic) stated that Dusty’s epilepsy was not ‘epilepsy’ but rather the symptom of an incomplete metal state brought about by latent bi-sexuality stemming from unresolved mummy and daddy issues, ‘You wanted to kill your father in order to be your father yourself. Now you are your father, but a dead father’. Having never met Dostoyevsky it seemed like rather an insightful comment to make, not at all a case of drawing a conclusion and then going back to see how one can arrive at it.

 

But what is this fascination with the private lives of others? I am an intensely private person- I have no social media, don’t give out my name, number etc- and yet I read many biographies and journals of the people whom I respect. My reasons for doing so is to understand the genesis of their art and thought- the personal intimate details of who sleeps with whom and blah blah do not interest me, my interest is purely in the abstract so for me in us seemingly incomprehensible why people have such passionate interests in the intimate, finite, details of other people’s lives.

 

If you asked the average person, in a formal questionnaire, if they like gossip etc they will, 80% of the time, answer no and as statistics are always reliable (would you lie to me maths?) it must be true and yet newspaper circulation goes through the roof when there is celebrity intrigue and one cannot spot the magazine aimed at Proust-Lovers-With-An-Interest-In-New-Forms-Of-Logic (In Search of New Neural Pathways magazine) amidst the rainforest (every pun intended) of celebrity nonsense.

 

But what is the appeal? I recently Googled an injuncted celebrity story that was mentioned on a topical radio comedy show simply because I thought that anyone who goes to such lengths, in terms of the cost to the tax payer and the blatant waste of time, to protect their children’s innocence as to their depravity (so much simpler than just not doing it) deserves (yes deserves) to have their secrecy violated. Did I find out? Yes. Did I care? I cannot begin to say how much I didn’t.

 

To speak in general terms there seems to be three obvious reasons why- to get close to the person, to distract from one’s own life and boredom. However, can we claim to know the person? Can we even claim to understand the situation? No. A great man (it was me! Tee hee) once said that all meaning derives from context so to use Wittgenstein’s example, if a lion could speak English we would not understand it as we do not know the context.

 

Privacy is one of the greatest rights that we have- one which is treated disdainfully but one which, once gone, is very hard to get back. I was reading on IBTIMES.com that Google record the conversations of those around their computers plus there are ongoing legal battles in terms of data protection. Many of those outraged (real or feigned) see no contradictions given that they give minute-by-minute updates of their private lives to the internet.

 

Maybe it is simply a lack of understanding with regards to consequences however, although this may seem a terrible thing to say, could steps not be taken to show the consequences? If people cannot be trusted maybe the corporations should step in ‘are you sure you want to uploaded this compromising photo? It will do more harm than good…really? You still want to? We’re sorry we are taking moral responsibility and not letting you’ (I am aware that I could then look data recognition etc). Steve Jobs and many other people have showed that people can determine to others what is ‘cool’ so maybe it is time for the media, corporations, publishers etc to take the moral high ground and cease to publish this nonsense. Whilst sales may initially go down, it is said that nature abhors a vacuum, so I am sure that, with all of the advances in advertising and so forth, sales will return once people have their new area of interest. Did you know that Newts have the ability to regenerate limbs, eyes, spinal cords, hearts, intestines, and upper and lower jaws?

 

Anyway the new issues of In Search of New Neural Pathways has just popped through the door, so until next Thursday…

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vengeance

 

 

 

 

So, let me tell you a little about a fellow called Dion. Dion was a guy from Syracuse, the heir to a tyrant called Dionysis, who just happened to become the companion/student of some other guy named Plato, who saw in Dion the potential for an experiment to determine if his model of the Philosopher King was valid. Dionysis, worried that Plato would lead Dion away from his ‘destiny’ of being a tyrant, decided to send Dion away into exile and, just for good measure, sent Plato away to be sold into slavery. Many years later Plato, reluctantly, went back to see Dionysis who, worried about how he had treated the ‘greatest living philosopher’, decided to heap praise and wealth upon him, of which Plato politely declined. When Plato was to leave, Dionysis, terrified of the damage that could be done to his reputation as though being known as Dionysis the Tyrant wasn’t bad enough, uttered, in passing, ‘I dare say, Plato, that you will have a good many things to say against me to your fellow philosophers’ to which Plato answered with a smile ‘God forbid that we should have so little to talk about in the Academy that we need to mention your name at all’.

 

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in Beyond Good and Evil ‘One is punished most for one’s virtues’ and often it can be seen that those who seek revenge on another do it out of motivations which stem from a weakness of character as opposed to any slight. This can be seen in the example above where both Dion and Plato are punished for their virtues and Dionysis’ feeling of being wronged, probably, stemming from an inferiority complex, for who wants to rule the world except one who is dissatisfied with their self? A close friend of mine once remarked that she feared that there was a switch in my head and one day I’d become sufficiently annoyed or bored and the switch would flip either up and down and I’d either become the next Napoleon or go off and become a monk. I replied that both were the same and that the former would be easier.

 

Throughout history, present and past (and probably future) people claim that many of the atrocities in the world stem from vengeance. To justify the claim they invoke the holy scriptures (Bible, Torah, Qu’ran) and say that their actions are sanctioned by God. Being me, I was not satisfied to hear people on both sides claiming that the actions stemmed from God so I went and read the Qu’ran, having previously read the other aforementioned texts. What I found in each book was the same- a clear indication that, to quote a Leonard Cohen song,

 

 

Tell me again

That you know what I’m thinking

But vengeance belongs to the Lord        

 

 

The books make it clear, to quote one for my example, ‘Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.’ (Romans 12:19 King James Version)

 

So why do people seek vengeance for themselves? There seems to be less awe in people than there should be, ‘There is an innocence of admiration: it is possessed by

him to whom it has not yet occurred that he himself may he admired some day.’ Thus spake Nietzsche, a man who had cause to curse life but who, throughout his work and life, looked to transcend it. To find the ideal beyond the pettiness of being ‘human, all too human’.

 

But why should we forgive those who slight us? Could not our forgiveness be validation to them for their actions? Oscar Wilde said ‘Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.’ Which is funny because it is (cliché) true. But I believe that it is more fundamental than that. Many countries still employ capital punishment, possibly using the biblical notion of an eye for an eye as justification. I am personally against the death penalty, not because I consider it too barbaric, but rather as I consider it too merciful. Crimes which are punished with the death penalty often have consequences beyond the immediate and others may suffer for years due to a single act which chastised in a quick, single moment. What would I do? I would break the person’s bones and then, when they had healed, break them again so that they can come to understand the hopelessness and long-term pain. Is this the right thing to do? I cannot say, I am in no way wise enough. Maybe this is why vengeance should belong to God alone for only God may be wise enough and strong enough to understand and show mercy.

 

So, to finish the story, Dion was murdered at the instigation of Dionysis’ followers but Plato is the one who has gone down in history as the father of modern philosophy and Dionysis a footnote, which only those with an interest in Plato and/or Plutarch (an Ancient Greek from the 2^nd century AD, possibly the definitive biographer of the Ancient World) will encounter.