Don't be shy. Check out my newest record. And if you wanna have one for yourself, in the words of Ben Stiller in Starsky and Hutch - do it, just dooo it - cuz it is now back in stock, in the mail to you in 24 hours flat.
That as it emerges more and more in culture, it brings an end to excessive office politics. What a drag it is to be enmeshed in such a dynamic, as power-hungry people play games with their shadows, to protect a security that only exists through fear and manipulation. I've found that the worst offenders are those with the least amount of family/home life. They sleep in the office, so to speak. Some use these power strategies, I believe, just because they frickin' can - for the poops and giggles self-gratification. For others it is like nicotine - a habit that no longer delivers but is nonetheless addictive. But for the sake of god, what an utter and complete waste of time. The reason an integral worldview might bring the end of such pathological politics is simple - you realize, deeply, that there is more to life than stupid power battles at the office. There is a whole spectrum of potentials, capacities, and paths - the best of which you take through the intuitive guidance of your most discreet voice. Everything else radically diminishes in importance.
I'm taking a break until Monday night. This is Memorial Day Weekend in the States, and Hannah, the Bean, and I are about to leave for her Aunt Bones and Uncle Rocky's farm house up in Wisconsin. We'll see them and Hannah's two cousins - Carter and Taylor. Aunt Bones makes a mean Strawberry Rhubarb Pie - from scratch! - and we're bringing our ice cream machine, to likewise make the cold yummy creamy stuff from bare ingredients.
Memorial Day, as it were, was founded by Gen. John Logan, who fought in the Civil War and then become a Senator for Illinois. My Chicago neighborhood - Logan Square - is named after him, and there is a big ole column-like statue in his honor that Hannah and I like to walk near as we take our evening walks.
So for all you who enjoy a relaxing Memorial Day, tip one back for General John, the State of Illinois, and all the soldiers who fought so that we could have this leisurely Monday. Take it easy, y'all.
For those inclined to interest in evolutionary biology and the manner in which the shiny one, Ken Wilber, philosophizes about it, take note. The Vomitting Confetti blog, by Tuff Ghost, posts an inquiry into Wilber's apparent mishandling of basic facts of evolutionary theory. Wilber responded, and Geoffrey Falk has a response to that. Read Wilber and Falk's responses here (May 27th entry). All of it is very interesting. Falk sees the same patterns of sloppy scholarship on Wilber's part that he has documented on his blog, as well as the dreadful habit to 'argue from authority', as Wilber often does. VConfetti cannot see why Wilber would be so inconsistent on such as vital and fundamental issue as evolutionary biology. Both make great points.
One thing I predict is that more and more of this sort of expose will continue - where Wilber's often shoddy research and superficial renderings of domains that others devote their lives to researching will come to light, and are rightly criticized. As scholars, our prime directive is to research original sources, and not rest upon a spiritual philosopher's hyperbolic commentary upon them - whose ambitions clearly are simply to encourage people to meditate. So keep the faith, friends! The house that Willber's theories rests upon can be blown over with less wind than one might think. Mind you, I'm not interested in deconstruction for its own sake. Far from it - what I desire is a more humble, reasonable, and responsible integral philosophy than the one offered by Wilber. And deeply, I don't want it to create its own ghetto.
My own experiment right now (since I was so absorbed in Integral Institute work for 16 months as lead art scholar) is to cut Wilber out. As I write and research, I inquire where and when I can reasonably and persuasively ignore Wilber's take on things, sprinkled through his Collected Works. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't (in good scholarly faith). But it is a question I didn't think to ask until I resigned from I-I. (Yes, I was naive.) Footnote and cite Wilber's work if you must, but through patient research into original sources, tempered by common sense and the ability for people to follow along, I have found that the actual applications of Wilber's theories are rather narrow. So, yes, he can be cut out without harm to integrity. The process of fleshing out his ideas allows the flimsy Wilber(tm) version to be easily discarded, without scholarly violation, since its holes are large enough for, ehem, semis.
You realize he actually hasn't done what you think he ought have. For art, he really hasn't talked much about artistic practice, about artwork creation, about art institutional policy, and even about art interpretation (though this is where he wrote the most). He talks about psychology, psychology, and more psychology, in ways that help one start the process of, in this case, an integral art philosophy, but hardly act as sustained support. For a long time I thought his approach - which outlines and lightly sketches - is a good way to go, because it allows other voices a fair hearing. But I have come to realize that this approach is dangerously close to scholarly co-out, because he is able to claim credit without responsibility, and can easily wiggle out of errors and misrepresentations.
My view is that he really just wants people to take up meditation and a multi-modular practice. Once people do, I believe he would prefer to let consciousness unfold as it does, in the unique manners for each person, and thus his work falls by the wayside - you are living a more integral life. Which means, to take this literally, that once you start meditation and other modules, you can let go of need to read Wilber's confusing superficialities about this, that, or the other thing (developmental values being perhaps the most obnoxiously obstuse). And then, if you are scholarly inclined, you start to research people who take the various domains of human thought, operation, and knowledge much more seriously and soberly than Wilber, apparently, ever could. A map responds to a changing world - not the other way around.
His strategy is to leverage his spiritual intuition born of his years as a meditator and prolific reader of books to create his 'argumentation from authority' - which is another way of saying, 'I've read much more than you, and meditated more than you, so why don't you just trust that I'm being accurate.' This carries him pretty far, and his passionate prose convinces many a lay reader, until some of them actually start to check out how Wilber has interpreted and characterized original sources.
My guess is that professionals in the various fields usually don't have the time or inclination to refute the ideas of a philosopher who only glides over their field, a strategy necessary for his 'theory of everything' map-making, which utilizes watered-down generalizations, only sometimes practical and useful. As Wilber comments upon thinkers and thought past and present, he hits, and he misses. But you'd never know it if you only read Wilber's version of the world's literature traditional and contemporary literature. As evidenced by his scholarlship alone, he has a high estimation of his own argumentative authority.
My record has sold out of its first pressing. Wow - it happened in just a few days, and I haven't begun the marketing campaign outside of blog shout-outs and links from site. Thanks to all y'all who bought it so quik!
The second pressing is already in the mail to CDBaby, so the record will be back in stock in the next couple days. If you have a moment, be sure to preview the tracks, all 14 if you like.
You can sign up to receive an email the moment it comes back into stock - again, in just a couple days, so be assured that your copy of this album - the first example of a style I call American Contemplative - waits just for you.
I've kept at it over the last 24 hours. If you haven't yet read it, you can scroll down the page, or just click here. Some may say it is a bit long, and I would sympathize. I rather surprised the crap out of myself at how much I had to say about Episode III, the entire 6 movie sequence, and my interpretations of the artistry and its relevance/commentary upon larger culture. It is mostly eye candy by a guy who read his Huxley between hits on the bong and endless mix tapes with Ravi Shankar, Pink Floyd, and Holst.
Nonetheless, I'll probably turn it into a full blown article at some point, but for the time being, it is a blog entry - I believe my lengthiest by a long shot. Enjoy - if, you know, Jedi and Sith are your cup of tea.
Here's a fascinating article from Wired Magazine, hat-tip to Mark Raterman.:
Petri dishes, microscopes and equations are all used in scientific research, but those tools can yield fascinating art, as a new exhibit at Princeton University shows.
The school recently held its first "Art of Science" competition to inspire the creation of science-related images from staff, students and others in the Princeton community.
The project led to a spectacular new art installation now on display at the school, and an accompanying online gallery of images.
Transgenic Neural Stem Cells John Dimos GS Department of Molecular Biology This image depicts neural stem cells that were genetically modified with an engineered form of HIV. Visualized in green is a transgenic protein introduced by HIV; red is a stem cell stain, and blue depicts neuronal progeny.
John Derbyshire, a writer for NRO, is held by many to be highly homophobic. I'm sympathetic to that view, though his views do have informed nuance. To leave that aside for a moment, I really like these words he added to The Corner today, with regard to the judicial difficulties with deep moral questions such as abortion and embryo cloning.
The phrase "genuinely right or wrong" implies an absolute frame of moral reference, which the people of the U.S.A., collectively, have not got. We "happen to believe" all sorts of contradictory things, drawn from many different sources. The trick is to get sufficient common agreement that we can write legislation and enforce it without inciting social disorder. Not many Americans think it is flagitious to destroy a week-old blastocyst. Not many Americans think it is not flagitious to destroy a nine-month fetus. (I'm with the majority on both points.) So somewhere between the one week and the nine months we have to draw a line.
The line is an arbitrary one, of course; but absent common agreement on the underlying metaphysics, it has to be. Legal lines of this kind usually are. You can vote at age 18 in my state, but there is no implied metaphysical assumption that you suddenly acquire political wisdom at midnight on your 18th birthday. It's just that a line must be drawn, and we put our heads together and agree where to draw it... Reserving the right to change our minds and draw it somewhere else if collective opinion changes, or if science uncovers some relevant fact. (Voting age used to be 21. We changed it, by common agreement. Something similar is happening in Britain with abortion law, as a result of improved womb-imaging techniques.)
If that sounds cold-blooded, I must say, the absolutist position seems to me more so. Human beings are much more social animals than they are metaphysical animals. We get along, and build societies and civilizations, by coming to common agreements on topics like this, after discussion and reflection, after grudging compromises and fudging of differences--hardly ever by whacking each other over the head with metaphysical theorems. Only intellectuals like to do that. The rest of us just want some sensible rules so we can get on with our lives in a society not racked by disorder.
My basic reaction - I liked it. Here is my review:
The Star Wars Sextet: America's First Creation Myth
It is enjoyment tempered by flaws that often infuriorate, but for which you develop love. What struck me is the realization that what the movies lack - a believable emotional core, depth of personality - is exactly what the central character, Anakin Skywalker, lacks in his psychology. And what he possesses in droves - showy flair and pride, a command of technology, and access to deep, essential knowledge of consciousness and self - reflect the larger narrative arc, as well, over the course of the six movies. Lucas's heart was obviously in this Episode III, because the fever pitch and nuance were each at their highest. Both Anakin and the entire epic are visually arresting and deeply informed by mysticism, yet are tragically kinked in the middle zones that involve emotional depth and interpersonal maturity.
On one hand, the Star Wars sextet ought not, on the surface, be taken too seriously. This is popular art with intentions of discreet depth only for those committed to look. As I entered the Chicago theatre to see the newest episode, my expectations were pretty low. Episode III delivers at what it should - being a kosmic tale largely for 12 year olds, with treats for the older folk who get into the character connections of the larger narrative arc. Lucas has said that one of his intentions has been to encourage spirituality in youngsters. Time will tell how successful he was at that, but I believe that he stands a good chance of success in that regard. But these are space adventures meant to look 'neat'.
I mean, look - the real appeal of this episode and all episodes, which started this cultural tidal wave of adulation for these movies, has primarily been the eye-candy factor. Episode IV's initial impact on our culture was in its technological presentation ('ooh, big ships in space!'; 'evil, black terror machine/man'), and that has continued for each subsequent episode, including the prequeals (and if you believe Roger Ebert, the post-quels of episodes 7, 8, and 9, to come sometime before Lucas dies). The main reason Lucas re-edited the original trilogy was because newer and better technology was developed, to realize his original concepts more concretely. Lucas, for all of his flaws, is firmly entrenched as an intuitive artist, who creates not linearly but circularly, and not in any standardized time frame. When the means become available, he doesn't just tweak, but re-examines every aspect of his films. He wants to create 'all at once', the condition of the contemporary artist, but the reality of actual creation is always bound by the rigors of physical sequence.
Much has been said about the dreadful dialogue when it comes to real human to human emotional exchange. I agree on almost every count, and I have nothing to add except that by now, you know what to expect with a Lucas film. The best lines in that regard (such as Han: I love you; Leia: I know) were improvised by Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher, and not in Lucas's script. That pretty much says it all. Lucas gives his actors little to nothing to work with as they attempt in vain to portray a semblence of real personnas. Thus I find that the only interpretive mode that allows forgiveness of the generally awful dialogue is to interpret the dialogue as director intention. In other words, instead of viewing the dialogue as badly executed art, you suspend disbelief, step back, and take it at face value. You then make your interpretations that question how this strange dialogue fits into the larger artistic statement. For as I wrote in my opening, the faults of the film are in almost precise parallel to the faults of central character. Is that a coincidence? I suggest to consider not - and perhaps only with the completion of this link in the overall narrative can we make this interpretive leap.
Machine as Extension of Human Consciousness
The most resonant through-line of the narrative is Anakin's relationship with machines. In Episode I, we learn that young Anakin, as boy genius with too much time on his hands, a lack of a father figure, a conniving slave-master, and little direction from mother (who was a hard laboring slave), through his own wits and intelligence built a C-3PO droid. This is a crucial window into what becomes Anakin's defining psychological dynamic. C-3PO is an interpreter droid who is fluent in millions of language, but has the depth and ability of self-reflection of, well, a 12 year old. Threepio's interior is, essentially, unexamined. He is a robot that with an awareness undifferentiated. He is easily agitated, lacks mature responses to stress, often cowardly, and is a deep worrier. It can interact with anyone, but has no soul (or little soul). It is shaped human-like, has a pretty, shiny exterior (the 'golden one') carries like a human (awkwardly), and cannot be left alone, else it gets itself caught in the worst of sticky wickets. He is graceful with language, but that's it. Somehow Threepio is still likable, even as he is deeply annoying.
All of this is essentially a multi-leveled or polysemous metaphor for everything that Anakin is. There are three basic levels to consider. The first is the surface/sensorimotor manner in which we view Anakin's look and objective actions. The second is his emotional/mental makeup. And the third is his spiritual/breath force that involves his essential will. These parallel the levels of consciousness and being present in all humans - body, mind, spirit. Lucas's character of Anakin, portrayed by Hayden Christensen, operates on each level, and thus provides interpretive material to consider and reconcile within the larger dramatic opera. Here is a sketch of each, one at a time.
Anakin is the chosen one, the 'golden child'. On the sensori-motor level of consciousness, Anakin often moves awkwardly. He consistently overdresses. He is lanky and too tall. He has a wooden and mechanical manner of speaking, yet is painfully polite in most situations. He is capable of ego-centric irony that is entirely self-referential, just like 3PO. Yet he is charming, handsome, graceful with light-sabers and flying ships. Fundamentally, he is uncomfortable in his own skin. And all in all, Anakin, like Threepio, appears solid, and capable of being a normal person who lives up to his potentials (which for Anakin are enormous). Yet this outward appearance is mere setup for deeper issues within.
On these deeper emotional and mental levels, Anakin has unfortunate subpersonality pathologies that in large part result from lack of a father figure. He loves Padme primarily as an object, that he looks at and beholds. He has had temporary father figures who abandon him, are killed, or do not trust him. He suffers from a lack of knowledge about what or who created him. His interpersonal skills are painfully undeveloped, his emotional responses are exclusively immature, yet his spatial and logical/mathematical intelligences are off the charts. Like Threepio, Anakin is faithful to anyone who will take a moment and direct him. He lacks the ability to distinguish motivations in people, and instead is wildly projective of his own interiors upon others. He finds a true father figure in Palpatine/Sidious, the subtle architect, (who, Lucas implies, had a hand in Anakin's virginal birth), and thus confides in a man who is the root of the galaxy's unrest. Deeply confused, Anakin lives in ambiguity, and thrives on impulse and unrestrained passion. He suffers the same lack of emotional nourishment as an adult that he did as a child, and this physical jail of his childhood (as a slave) becomes the emotional jail of his adult life (unable to connect), and then the physical reality again (as man in machine). Where he once was outwardly golden on the surface, he is outwardly black, traditionally a symbol for evil and plague, as well as psychological conflict within.
On the essential/spiritual level, Anakin and 3PO are both painfully thin, yet deeply informed. Their deepest motivations are pure to the sake of parody. Anakin's lack of listening skills means he rarely if ever connects with another person in a manner in which personalities melt away, and human to human unity is achieved. Padme, as deeply intuitive and alive feminine counterpart to Anakin's logic-based nightmare, can always sense when Anakin is not transparent. His deepest drive - to protect Padme and their baby (which turns out to be babies) - mirrors the most resonant and direct example he knows - that of his own mother's deeply protective stance towards him as a young child. This is heartfelt, but narrow. He feels that by accomplishing this task, he and Padme would rule the galaxy and bring peace to everything. This confusion of possessive love (me and mine) with compassionate love (me and all of us) undoes him.
Organic Soul as Counterbalance to Cold Machines
Of course the fact that Anakin becomes 'more machine than man' confirms the human/machine relationship at the core of Lucas's space folklore. Yet Lucas provides ample balance, through the depiction of characters alive, vivified, and soulful. That Threepio's counterpart - R2D2 - is emotional, intuitive, and feisty parallels the reciprocal relationship of Anakin and Padme. R2D2 will, in my estimation, be the most memorable character in all of Star Wars, because you realize that the little white and blue droid has, literally, seen and experienced everything. The robot cannot speak in words, but its emotional intelligence is immediate and unmistakable. R2 has the most funk of any of Lucas's characters. For Lucas, even machines are not always cold and emotional bereft.
And nor are all humans. The characters played by Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, Sir Alex Guinness - Lucas's UK contingent (best suited to Lucas's style, due to the physicality of British theatre) - not to mention Samuel L Jackson and, surprisingly, Jimmy Smits exhibit a mostly satisfactory emotional empathy and resonance, at least for this adolescent-intended tale. Yoda, especially in his younger age, exhibits spunk and wisdom. The Jedi are a lively and panentheistic bunch, built on a pantheistic mishmash of various religious and spiritual traditions - a mix of Christian self-less love, Buddhist analytical compassion, Islamic revelatory embodiment, and bearers of a secret truth based upon master/student transmission, lineage, and communal revelry that echoes Gnostic, Pagan, and tribal traditions the world over. Animals, too, have soul - witness the memorable Chewbacca and even the dragon Obi-Wan rides in Episode III as he fights General Grevious.
Having researched Joseph Campbell and the 'hero's journey', Lucas's overall narrative has innumerable whiffs of historical creation myths and literature (the Romeo and Juliet parallel of Anakin and Padme was nicely done) because the basic pattern is followed, and artfully concealed. This attention to and mastery of conventional form allows him to go post-conventional and nonlinear with the narrative, in ways that seem to make the conventional hero's journey fade into the discreet background. Lucas has made new cinematic conventions. Through his virtuosity emerges all the smaller subplots and devices needed to fill out the epic - Jar Jar, Greedo, Jabba, Lando, and many more - that serve to entertain the audience, more than educate or enlighten.
But the primary examination of Star Wars is man's inevitable but uneasy relationship with machine, on the levels of body, emotional, mind, and spirit. The capacity for democracy itself as a satisfactory machine for political peace is deeply questioned by the post-hippie, pre-new age Lucas, himself deeply suspicious of political power in Hollywood and American government. Likewise, the Jedi council, which operates not through democracy but through informed intuition shared in a small collective, is seen as an imperfect machine. Episode IV was released in 1977, in the wake of the controversial Vietnam War and Nixon's Watergate, seen in some circles as two examples of abuse of power. Government is social machine to defend borders, facilitate internal and external economy and trade, and manage the installation and enforcement of laws. Lucas gives constant scrutiny to government and the political forces within.
Eventually, circumstances and his native psychological makeup mean that Anakin succumbs and submits to machines, where his daughter and son each face similiar trials (Luke in his confrontations with Vader; Leia with her undying love for Han Solo, even when frozen in a carbon machine) and are able to transcend. Darth's eventual salvation comes when his son removes the black mask and reveals - yes - there is still good, a human good in him. The machine did not completely overrule organic consciousness. Like all machine technology, Vader's ran its course.
America's First Creation Myth
The quest for power through machination - personal, political, and spiritual - becomes the axis around which the entire six episodes revolve. It is the thread that is essential and homeopathic in every moment of every movie. That the Force - a metaphor for energy in its total, discreet form that permeates all of creation - is not mechanical and pliable by human control but is instead organic, wild, and unpredictable is Lucas's fundamental conclusion. The Sith treat the Force as a machine for their own benefit and manipulation. The Jedi take the opposite approach to the Force. To accept this condition, and not fight it or attempt to control it, is their essential premise. The Jedi time and time again displays the fundamental experiment for humans to acquire this realization - be mindful of your thoughts and feelings, practice contemplation - or by any other name, meditate and then train.
For Lucas, humble thoughts and simple behavior result in acceptance of Nature's chaotic undercore. 'May the Force be with you' is a populist reminder to carry realization of your true Self with you in everything you think and do. For at the end of Episode III, after the war has been fought and the Jedi have lost, Yoda gives Obi-Wan something rather surprising. He gives him a practice. Even a person as wise and experienced as Obi-Wan can still cultivate a stronger and deeper connection to original Nature. We can all improve and deepen our consciousness.
The Jedi - deterministic, measured, yet optimistic - are Lucas's paradigm for cultural change. Small groups of highly talented and empathetic individuals who intuitively and heuristically find workable truths, in concord and collaboration with the world around them. The distinct ethnic differences in Lucas's characters, and his critiques of uncontrolled democracy, bespeak his desire for pluralism tempered by common sense and flexibility.
In the end, Star Wars is about families, as a machine for creation, destruction, pathology, nurturing, confusion, and salvation. It is about our fathers, our mothers, our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our sisters, and our ancestors. Love is most difficult when it enters into areas of deep familial conflict. I believe that the overwhelming cultural response, for almost the last 30 years, to the six episodes of Star Wars is reciprocal to the areas of emotional weakness present and oft-critiqued in Lucas's epic narrative. We attract not what we want, but what we need. The act of love includes the acceptance of that timeless and troubling dynamic. If the audience finishes and completes the art experience, a conclusion I share, then the outpouring of love, and depth of love, in the world's cultures for these films supplies what Lucas and his actors could not provide themselves in the created artifact.
For Lucas, real partnership on all levels of being is the only path to peace on one's interior and exterior. In my estimation, he has succeeded in the evocation of these ideals through the medium of populist cinema based upon eye candy theatrics. A flawed and self-reflexive masterpiece, the epic Star Wars will mark the late 20th century in the historical accounts. It has transcended its own limitations, grown beyond its creator and even its native environs, and lives forever on in the anonymous machinations at the edges of culture and consciousness, all the world over. Technologically, culturally, socially, and phenomenologically, Star Wars offers to the world in large part what America offers to the world, in large measure. Through these space odysseys, Lucas has translated the contemporary American condition into celluloid.
Star Wars just might be America's first authentic stab at its first creation myth, born of the country's escape from tyranny, birth amidst racial and ethnic slavery and strife, assimilation of earthy tribes and customs of conquered native peoples, the triumph and terror of industrial technology and science, and the personal and decidedly civic struggle for freedom of self within collective responsibility - as well as the self-consciousness of itself that only comes through age and the face-down of various internal conflicts. For human sacrifice, courage, grit, and wit are what redeem amidst turmoil and transition. America, as melting pot of the world, both succeeds and struggles to determine truths amidst tempered pluralism, lack of native history, the cusps between absolutism and multiplicity, geographic isolation from its roots, and the unavoidable ambiguity of frontier. Is that not, in essence and in subtle measure, Anakin's path and psychological condition?
Is this a stretch? Well I think the parallels are worth note. The deepest lesson in Anakin/Vader is that there is essentially good in him. Anakin fights for his identity, without father figure, within a world of slavery and transition. He is a romantic, falls in love with visual beauty much older than him, lives on the frontier (physically, mentally, even spiritually). He is not trusted by others, his own teachers either die or seem ill-equiped to fully train him, and he is left on his own, isolated by his psychology and his talents. His formative years were in geographic isolation, in a strict culture of hard work and anonymous discipline. Older now, others see him as troubled but also charming, full of potential, and and possessive of wide intelligences. He needs a bit more time to mature, in their eyes, though the world's problems beg his participation now. I believe this is, on the whole, a decent summation of the over 200 years of America's relatively short life in the world.
Sound too dark, or even with whiffs of anti-Americanism? I think not. The final note to remember is that there is good in him. Ultimately, Anakin fulfills his prophecy. In death as Vader, a redeemed Anakin returns as Palpatine's empire falls. He brings order to the galaxy. Lucas suggests that a de-enmeshment with one's past (his childhood fears, his lack of father figure, and other aspects represented by Darth Sidious) fuels what amounts to a personal salvation. The lineage of master to pupil through generations is relinked, and (we assume) a more stable galactic democracy is re-installed. Anakin learns who he can trust, and also that he can trust himself. Anakin's son and daughter were first illusioned, then disillusioned, and finally unillusioned - they were informed realists, who fought then forgave the sins of their father. And Anakin's spiritual force opens to its full bloom - a character who has seen it all, become the father he never had himself, finally found acceptance and peace of his own limitations, and seen the limitations of cold, mechanical thinking.
Lucas, through the vehicle of eye-candy cinema inspired by Flash Gordon comics, has succeeded in pulling the wool of deeper artistic intentions over the eyes of its adoring fans. Almost. He lets on in Episode III the connection between Star Wars politics and current world politics. Thus the conclusions emerge: He has created a portraiture of America's rocky, inspired, rugged, and showy entrance into the world. He believes, as I do, that while America's edges between idealism and realism are tricky, especially on the surface, what lies deeper is a gift to the world - the seeds of widespread realization of the power of spiritual acceptance and prayer, tempered application of power, talented communal exchange, respect for lineage, heirarchy, and flexibility, and the capacity for committed people of diverse backgrounds to work together for change, novel emergence, and improvement of the world. He wanted to plant these artistic seeds not in adults, but in children. And as Anakin's multi-leveled development shows, there is good reason to be patient - to witness how, and indeed if, these seeds take root and grow, especially if we believe that a sustainable and reproducible good can come from it.
Had kind of an active day on the listening/absorption front. I uploaded a bunch of contemplative CDs to my work iTunes, and I listened to each during that process. These work really well together, as a mix. Distinct yet cohesive - on your toes but rooted to the core of the planet.
Ramnad Krishnan: Vidwan - South India classical The Bali Sessions - Balinese gamelan collection Iran: Persian Classical Music - self-explanatory Music of Bulgaria - Bulgarian Women's Choir (w/ Philip Koutev) Japan: Kabuki and Other Traditional Music - self-explanatory J.S. Bach's Cello Suites - Mstislav Rostropovich on cello Shona Mbira Music - Classical Zimbabwe collection
I define contemplative music as that which relaxes, massages, and supports your most essential will and imagination, slowly, circularly, but unmistakably. It is not music that puts you in a trance. It wakes you up through a discreet and subtle narrative of mystery itself, revealed. Like yeast into flour, contemplative kneeds recognition of your true self into your awareness. The satisfaction is immediate as well as down the line, after this sonic dough has relaxed, risen, been punched, and finally baked, in the oven of, well, life.
See the left sidebar. These are the blogs I read on a regular basis, and many of these bloggers are friends and colleagues. We've shared many voyages through the fires, and somehow survived unscathed. Of course, anything I list or post on The Daily Goose I give my highest recommendation, and the same goes for this Blog Roll. Deep harmonic bows to these folks. Keep the faith.
The week before last, as I mentioned before on The Daily Goose, Hannah's experimental short film A Whirling Tango was shown at a Chicago film festival. "The Big Screen" is a juried festival for student films, open to student of Columbia College Chicago - which happens to be the largest film school on the planet. Ten films screens, as well as a reel of recent animation. Hannah's was fifth. My father and his wife, as well as a bunch of Hannah's friends and colleagues, were there. The theatre has 300 seats, and it was standing room only.
The thing that most struck me was the clear feeling that Hannah's film really fit and filled the space. It is a leap, of course, from the editing screen of her G4 to the projected screen of a standard theatre. Her film belongs in the big spaces. It stood up well - and to me (I'm biased to the nth degree) it was an even better viewer experience in this space. This is yet another reminder of the importance of presentational space in the overall art experience. Hannah's film content didn't change from the small screen to the big, but the experience was much different, and better. It was so cool to see how certain scenes of the film elicted laughter (appropriate laughter), given that this is an experimental film and there is not a word of dialogue. Her film is all found-footage and music.
I, as the composer of the film's sound track, was particularly excited by the theatre's excellent sound system. The woody, deep sonority of Jennie Dorris' marimba performance was all the more clearer and immediate. So I was one happy hubby.
Hannah got an engraved statue for being selected for the festival. She gave a short speech where she thanked me and revealed to the crowd information we found out that morning - that we are having a girl. When she reached the stage, the crowd could see her enormodome-sized belly, and they let out a big 'Ohhh!'.
All in all, what a night. It was fun to get compliments and we both networked for future projects. There was a great vibe in the air, and it is always a treat to see great new films by up and coming filmmakers. I can understand why people like to attend festivals especially when their work is screened. As the creators, Hannah and I felt like we were in a dream. These ideas started as semi-conscious intuitions in our interiors. Through months of midwifing and trial and error, now those intuitions are captured in form and presented in a venue, for others to reflect upon. The loop of consciousness grew bigger and wider. It is quite a dynamic to witness.
It happens to you, as an artist, from time to time, doesn't it? For whatever reason - maybe you lose access to your production tools, or maybe your other life priorities need more immediate attention, or you are physically or mentally ill for a time. When you are unable to create and express your intuition in form, against your will, some feeling starts to grow. First as an irritant, and over time to a full-blown disease. You get plugged up. Energy gets kinked, as if caught in a water hose all wound up.
This is how it felt over the last five days when, due to server firewall issues, I couldn't add to The Daily Goose blog. I could look at it, I could read other people respond to it. I could muse about how to tweak it here and there. But I couldn't touch it. I couldn't get into its workings. I couldn't change it, or help it grow. It was static in form, but my consciousness was anything but. Without the outlet to manifest my consciousness and reflect it into TDG, interior pressure grew. It was uncomfortable. Stuff wanted to come out, but it couldn't.
Sure, there are practices to release from enmeshment in form. I could meditate upon how my desire for blogging was another illusion, to note and then allow to pass by, like a cloud. I could apply my intuition to other of my projects, such as marketing for my new CD, my articles, my books. I could compose at the piano, and enjoy the company of Hannah and the Bean all the more. Each of these happened in one way or another. I wasn't at my wits end or anything. There was no danger that Hannah had to send me to the crazy farm. My life continued.
But there something that had a certain feeling I couldn't shake. It was distinctly physical. It was somewhere in my gut, with a discreet pipeline to my mind and my essential will. A tension grew that meditation and other experiments didn't really mollify. There was a loss. There was a plug. There was frustration and even discomfort. I was at ease, as much as I could be.
But to not express freely actually hurts. To not relish in the liberated response ability of irrigated intuition alters the sensory relationship you have with your body. It is not an illusion, any more than getting stabbed in your stomach is an illusion. When you want to produce creative artifacts, are all inspired to do so, and reached the point where expression must occur, but you can't, this is the classical definition of torment. Your will is abused; your breath force constricted; your openness is unsupported. Your tones, unused. Your resonance, unshared. Your deepest, widest recognition - unechoed. Your self, undone.
Take note of his great new blog. Full disclosure - I very much appreciate that he recently quoted me, about integral art. To return the favor, here's something I very much like of his:
What's needed in the abortion debate are political approaches that strive for the common ground that respects both the valuable life of the mother and the valuable life of the fetus. Speaking of "respecting life" as some courageous pro-choice Democrats are doing is a good start. But these Democrats need an integral perspective in order to demonstrate how a moderate abortion stand is the most progressive and most truly pro-life. This doesn't require dragging religion into politics, but it does mean using more complex analyses that honor both spiritual absolutes and this-worldly realism.
P.S. - Joe's Blog just got linked to by Andrew Sullivan. This is big news! Congrats to him and his work.
MARSHALL MCLUHAN ON EYE PERCEPTION VS EAR PERCEPTION:
From p. 156 of his Understanding Media:
Primitive man lived in a much more tyrannical cosmic machine than Western literate man has ever invented. The world of the ear is more embracing and inclusive than that off the eye can ever be. The ear is hypersensitive. The eye is cool and detached. the ear turns man over to universal panic while the eye, extended by literacy and mechanical time, leaves some gaps and some islands free from the unremitting acoustic pressure and reverberation.
What are they? Besides another example of the diversity within conservative thought, here is how Brian Anderson, author of South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias defines them:
As I use the term, which I didn’t coin — Andrew Sullivan was speaking of South Park Republicans at least a few years back, as was Stephen Stanton, who writes for Tech Central Station — it loosely refers to an anti-liberal or an iconoclastic right-of-center type: someone who may not be traditionally conservative when it comes to things like censorship or popular culture or even on some social issues but who wants nothing to do with the dour, PC, and elitist Left.
From a surprisingly wide-ranging NRO Q&A, read in full here. At face value, the fact that a seminal TV cartoon has spawned a political classifiction is value enough. Whether it becomes a haven for a politics that transcends and includes both interior and exterior causality of suffering, and both interior and exterior varieties of social change, remains to be seen.
Friends, the technical issues have been taken care of. The Daily Goose is back! ... in black, white, red, and chartreuse ... feel it. In the saddle. Again.
My many apologies - twas a hard to detect server issue, specifically having to do with the firewall. I'm glad firewalls are there, to keep intruders out! Better too safe than too, ehem, immodest. Anyway, thanks deep for your patience. You don't know what you miss until it is our of your reach. For several days there, I was like the mime in the box who can't find the key to the door that doesn't exist.
Or something.
Anyway, it sucked. But I'm back. And there was much rejoicing. [muffled "yaaaaayyyyy..."]
Good things happened during the hiatus. (Maybe it was meant to be - silence before the storm, and such...). Some people like to ask, 'what would jesus say?' Well, at this moment I wonder, 'what would Lao Tzu say?' ... WWLTS? ... Perhaps, upon this context, he might comment, "The hiatus that can be told is not the eternal hiatus."
But the best news of the day -- I Am Sound went onsale! Spring bloomed, and so did this record. I poured my heart and soul into this record over the last 18 months. Longtime readers of The Goose know that they have been present during this process of creation - basically, from concept to production. Well, here it is, for preview and purchase from CD.Baby.com. It ships in 24 hours, direct to your door. It is just that EZ.
So in this season of spring, as summer approaches, enjoy I Am Sound on your home stereo, worldcentric iPod, walkman, or wherever you go. Give it to a friend or loved one, because there is a 20% discount if you buy more than one copy. Thanks to everyone for their support of this record. I'm thrilled to offer it to the world, through a wide-distribution channel.
It is experimental, traditional, choral, instrumental, and 100% of the American tradition, open to a world ear, humble in its discreet tonality. It is one voice with many tones. Buy it and support independent, integral music. Each album you buy allows me to make more records down the line. Enjoy now, invest in the future, and we all party in the hot tub of consciousness.
THERE ARE THREE REASONS I READ NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:
I've gotten a couple questions over the last couple years about why I read NRO. Many of these inquiries have come from friends who aren't too familiar with the magazine, and only know it to be of a conservative bent. Of course that it true, but for some of my friends, 'conservative' is an epithet. Obviously I disagree, and of course I stand bemused when I hear other people use 'liberal', too, as an epithet.
Neither are an epithet, neither are a bad word, both alude to a large tent of ideas, beliefs, and philosophies. And both can operate through the interface of at least three developmental worldviews - mythic literal, rational multiplistic, consensual pluralistic. Conservativism and liberalism are found in both American political parties. And each are distinct, yet connected by evolving collective consciousness, where the subject of one becomes the object of the other. But more on that in a moment.
I started reading NRO about five years ago. After having a steady dose of liberal politics through the magazine of The Nation, Salon.com, The Progressive, and many others - not to mention attending a liberally bent university as an English Major (Washington University) and having most of my friends decidedly liberal, my impulse was clear. I wanted to know more about the other side. I wanted more of a diversity of thought, analysis, and opinion. In college and then when Hannah and I lived in the Twin Cities (very liberal overall), I started to realize that while liberal folks like to champion diversity of a certain kind, what they tended to exclude from consideration was conservative-style analysis, and conservative values were marginalized.
So I plunged headlong into a mixture of liberal and conservative political thought. I liked to tell my friends and family that I read both Salon.com and NRO.com; that I read both Slate.com and the Weekly Standard; that I read both ZMagazine and TownHall.com. Stuff like that. And it was true. I swallowed both sides as if both contained truths and both had an important perspective to consider. And I recommend this approach to anyone who wants an inclusive view of politics. So as, for example, the Clinton impeachment, his late-term executive orders, his proposal for single payer health care, 9/11, the Afghan war, the Iraq war, and many other smaller issues and hotspots emerged in the last five years, I sought out thinkers from both sides, and witnessed what each said.
Given my liberal/progressive upbringing, though, my learning curve was much longer with the conservative side. I was brought up natively sympathetic to the Democratic Party. I didn't know, for example, that many conservatives once loved but then grew severely disenchanted by Jimmy Carter. I didn't realize that conservatives fresh out of college in the 70s and 80s couldn't get many university professorships, and instead joined think tanks as a means for intellectual research and to support their families. I didn't realize that so-called 'Neocons' are actually quite sympathetic with the New Deal and the Great Society. I didn't realize the level of frustration that exists because university humanities departments have gutted their 'Great Books' canon of Western literature, and replaced it with, in their view, ideology unanchored to test-of-time literature. I didn't realize that many conservatives consider themselves as 'classic liberals'. These and many other things I have learned as I have witnessed conservative analysis and thought.
But there is also a lot of close-minded analysis. NRO, for example, has several staff writers that are as close-minded as those of Salon.com. TownHall.com is very difficult to read if you are a person who does not consider 'liberal' to be an epithet. It collects writers who are too close to the Mythic-Literal worldview to be of much import in today's pluralistic reality. I have stopped reading that site - but when I did, I mostly used it to react against, to inspire to transcend and as an example of how not to think.
Here are some of my conclusions. One is that there is a large diversity of thought that gets lumped under the guise of 'conservatism'. Many are familier with terms such as paleocons, theocons, neocons, and even crunchy cons. There are more strains that don't have such neat and tidy names. Another conclusion is that, frankly, I think conservatives write and reason better. They tend to pay more attention to proper language, and tend to be better at argumentation and rhetoric. That is not to say that what they argue and reason is better than what liberals argue and reason. But conservative tend to be better at coherant expression. This tends to infuriorate liberals, who might have really great ideas, but not the means to always express them in ways that convince skeptics.
And my final conclusion for now is that NRO is by far the best conservative publication on the internet. It is dynamic, encouraging of debate within its staff writers, and has a diversity of topics beyond mere politics - arts, culture, the academy, economics, and religion/spirituality are biggies. Their film reviews are great. I think you will get the best picture of contemporary conservatism - with all its diversity, contradictions, and pressing issues - at NRO.
Specifically, there are three reasons to read NRO -- Jonah Goldberg, Jay Nordlinger, and their team-blog 'The Corner'.
Goldberg uses impecable reasoning, a deep sense of humor and sympathy to pop culture, and a more open mind than liberals give him credit for to craft a very compelling body of commentary. He is the anchor of their staff blog, and sets its agenda through his masterful use of humor and seriousness. Overall, his thought is evolving, but is still rooted in his basic tenant of conservatism - human nature has no history, which is another way of saying, when we are born we all start at square one.
Jay Nordlinger, known as a music critic by many, writes a column called 'Impromptus'. In many ways, he appears to be one of the select few that function as the heart and soul of NRO (and the print magazine, 'National Review'). In his rangy and short pieces that make up his Impromptus, the reader is treated to commentary on politics, liberalism's characteristics, language, and music. Commentary on the rise and fall of Jimmy Carter in conservative circles is best documented by Nordlinger, from whom this is a personal story.
And finally, The Corner is perhaps the best overall team blog on the Internet that I know of, and certainly as far as politics/current events go. With a stable of over 40 contributors, it is as lively as anyone would want. I particularly enjoy the commentary of each Supreme Court decision as well as the inside information privy to the participants, many of whom are deeply involved with the inner workings of Washington DC. And here is where you'll also get the negative and closeminded aspects of NRO as well as conservatism. Many of their writers are deeply imbedded in a narrow view of right and wrong, unconscious enmeshment in mythic literalism, an unhealthy aversion to anything 'liberal', and frankly, not that interesting of writers, because their views are rather predictable.
Nordlinger and Goldberg (and occasionally a couple other writers) are able to transcend and include mythic and rational multiplicity and reach a truly informed and inclusive pluralism in their writing - a pluralism that knows its history, its developmental roots, and is informed by many perspectives. And with the Corner, dynamic pluralism (even though it and its sister concept of relativism are bad words in those parts) is built into its design, even in the micro-manner of a single website.
It is funny. Through its collaborative concept and its couple highly talented writers, NRO is probably more progressive than nearly every liberal-based magazine. I don't agree with at least 60% of the ideas expressed by NRO writers. But the open secret - agreement is not the point. Informed debate is the means of exchange for conservatism. You are supposed to have opposing views, else conservative dialogue falls apart. Or as Goldberg puts it, "democracy is all about disagreement, not agreement."
There is significant talk of democratic reform. This includes the legalization of political parties, free elections, and endorsement of a market ecomony. Early signs, with countless steps ahead, but better than nothing by a long shot. The Washington Post has the story. Here is a kosmic kwote:
Damascus is a far different capital from it was 10 years ago, when fear and dreary Stalinist architecture cast a pall over life. The endemic iconography of Assad's father -- building-size portraits and pictures pasted every few feet -- are gone, making way for advertisements for Chanel, BMW and Syria's mobile phone network. Freewheeling Beirut radiates its influence on the Syrian capital, evident in fashion, taste and restaurants and bars that vie for space in the once-neglected, cobblestoned Old City.
While the heavy-handed state media remain unchanged, Arab satellite stations such as al-Jazeera and pan-Arab newspapers enter freely. For those with English skills and enough money for a subscription, the Internet offers a sometimes startling window on Syrian politics written from inside the country. Nearly all Web sites are accessible, except for those that end in ".il," the domain for Israel.
"There's no fear. People are not afraid to talk, and this is a tremendous change," Sukkar said.
Indeed, that is a tremendous change - fundamental, in fact. It is the emergence of a new worldview for those who previously did not have freedom of speech. Imagine how you would feel if you were without such rights?
This morning I watched her testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee. I was riveted. Obviously hers is a tragic story (with the murder of her mother and husband by a man against whose court case she ruled) but the level of her dignity this morning was off the charts. The Chicago Tribune has the story.:
WASHINGTON -- In her first major public appearance since a disgruntled plaintiff murdered her husband and mother in her Chicago home, U.S. District Court Judge Joan H. Lefkow today called for better protection for judges.
She also asked lawmakers to repudiate recent "gratuitous attacks" on the judiciary by commentators such as Pat Robertson and by some members of Congress.
"In the age of mass communication, harsh rhetoric is truly dangerous," Lefkow said. "Fostering disrespect for judges can only encourage those that are on the edge, or the fringe, to exact revenge on a judge who ruled against them."
Lefkow said more resources need to be given to the U.S. Marshals Service to evaluate potential threats and protect judges. She said judges themselves were not in a position to evaluate threats.
She also called on lawmakers to disperse as quickly as possible the $12 million Congress has approved to install home security systems for the 2,200 active and semi-retired judges and magistrates in the federal court system.
Lefkow said there was no time for delay in releasing the funds.
"As recently as last Friday, May 13, I was spotted and harassed in a restaurant in downtown Chicago," she said. "Had that harasser come back not with a nasty sign but with a gun, I would not be here today to speak with you."
