Tradition betrayed

[Karl Henning]

Arrogance? I spent my entire existence jumping from one thing to the next, looking for substance, and being told i had no right to complain when i didn't find any along the way, for if others enjoyed frivolous things, who was i to criticize? Everything is subjective!

Until i realized that such arguments were pure, utter nonsense. It is not arrogance. Its lack of patience for a mindset that had me bounce around to and fro in a realm of sheer mediocrity through out the best years of my life.

This is one of the most unadulteratedly sensible posts I've known you to make.

None of this is arrogance, nor am I saying that any of this is.

[Gurn Blanston]

yes, people round here are annoyingly resistant to unsubstantiated ex cathedra pronouncements

I don't think that we are the problem, exactly. Possibly others though, probably even a majority.

I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

[Josquin des Prez]

My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

I think there's some misunderstanding here. Its not that the percentage you speak of was any higher in any period of history, its that in other times serious things were, well, taken seriously. Its also a question of maintaining certain standards, whether it is by upholding certain values, or more importantly (and more pertinently with the intellectual mindset of modern society), by criticizing the lack of said values in certain things.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

The reason I got into classical music was because I thought it was the most profound and moving music I had heard in my life.  Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

Coming from a man with no musical training whatsoever:  It is even worse to see a trained classical musician downplay the profundity of his own choice of music.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

[Thomas Crystalstick]

My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

[bwv 1080]

  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

it is not obviously hollow in comparison and those of us who disagree with you tend to react poorly to the arrogance and lack of respect for other's views typically expressed in these culture-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket hissy fits.  No different than the obnoxious tone-nazis (which thankfully have not been around much) who think everything that strays outside of 19th century part writing conventions is some sort of emperor's new clothes scheme to con the gullible masses

[jowcol]

I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

Excellent choice.  I'm pretty fond of the Feng/Jane English translation, in that it comes close, (from what I heard) the the terseness and implied meanings of the original.   You can access all of the text from that translation here:


http://www.daily-tao.com/


Also, for the Bhagavad Gita, I'm a big fan of the Isherwood translation-- http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441 Among other things, the forward by Aldous Huxley describes it in the context of the "Perennial Philosophy"- which may (or may not) be up your alley.

[jowcol]

That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Although the Tao te Ching clearly states the a "man" of wisdom has both halves within them, and keeps to both.  The gender is not specified in original for the "person of wisdom" or "Master" -- the Stephen Mitchell translation uses "he" or "she" in different places to make it clear it is not referring to a man exclusively.

A couple translations of Chapter 28:

Tao Te Ching: Chapter 28
translated by Stephen Mitchell (1988)

Know the male,
yet keep to the female:
receive the world in your arms.
If you receive the world,
the Tao will never leave you
and you will be like a little child.

Know the white,
yet keep to the black:
be a pattern for the world.
If you are a pattern for the world,
the Tao will be strong inside you
and there will be nothing
      you can't do.

or

Tao Te Ching: Chapter 28
translated by Tolbert McCarroll (1982)

Develop the strength of a man,
      but live as gently as a woman.
Become a brook and receive all things under heaven.
If you are such a brook
      then Virtue will constantly flow into you
      and you will become a simple child again.

Interesting quote in  Chapter 10:

Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,

Female imagery is also there referring to the primal mother, the valley spirit that never dies (Chapter 6), which does not sound too materialistic to me.

Also, in some ways, the female half is described as the more mystical of the two-- the emptness and stillness from with the more male have emerges. See some examples below:

Chapter 25
Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

Chapter 52 explicitly links the masculine with material manifestations:

Fifty-two
The beginning of the universe
Is the mother of all things.
Knowing the mother, on also knows the sons.
Knowing the sons, yet remaining in touch with the mother,
Brings freedom from the fear of death.

This female side is also described as the more powerful of the two, since it is more aligned with the natural flow:

Sixty-one
A great country is like low land.
It is the meeting ground of the universe,
The mother of the universe.
The female overcomes the male with stillness,
Lying low in stillness.


Some points to ponder...

[jowcol]

The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

There is a big difference in disliking someone who's actions you perceive are evil, and someone who is in a category you feel may be evil or lesser, but hasn't done anything to deserve it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Excellent choice.  I'm pretty fond of the Feng/Jane English translation, in that it comes close, (from what I heard) the the terseness and implied meanings of the original.   You can access all of the text from that translation here:


http://www.daily-tao.com/


Also, for the Bhagavad Gita, I'm a big fan of the Isherwood translation-- http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441 Among other things, the forward by Aldous Huxley describes it in the context of the "Perennial Philosophy"- which may (or may not) be up your alley.

Just found the Feng/Jane edition. As for your second recommendation, could you, erm, provide a free ebook link? I'd buy the kindle version but the fact it actually costs more then the paper edition ticks me off. And i can't order the latter since i'm Italy at the moment.

[jowcol]

Just found the Feng/Jane edition. As for your second recommendation, could you, erm, provide a free ebook link? I'd buy the kindle version but the fact it actually costs more then the paper edition ticks me off. And i can't order the latter since i'm Italy at the moment.

Closest I can come it to give you a link to the Huxley forward:

http://parvati.tripod.com/perennial.html


An onlline version hers :   http://www.atmajyoti.org/gi_bhagavad_gita_pr_introduction.asp

Umm.. could not find a free ebook, but the search did indicate some porn sites that seemed interesting.

FWIW-- the Open Source program Calibre is very handy for changing ebook formats.  Their policy is that they don't condone piracy, but if you buy it in one format, you should have rights to it in all formats.


An earlier translation, the Edwin Arnold, is available through project gutenberg, and can be found here.
http://www.manybooks.net/titles/anonetext00bgita10.html

[Florestan]

For those uncomfortable with mysticism, we can still adopt that sort of dual-level approach on a scientific level: Hitler was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like the rest of us, but on the macro level, he was a mass murderer.

I am not uncomfortable with mysticism: Christianity has plenty of mystics. It is Pantheism that I don't buy.

Do you know the Hindu concept of Lila? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_%28Hinduism%29 The idea of God "forgetting Himself" as his unity takes on the countless roles of all individual beings and things, playing a sort of cosmic game of hide-and-seek with Himself.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll investigate it.

[Florestan]

Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level. 

Says who?

[Josquin des Prez]

Says i, as well.

[Florestan]

why not immanent mysticism?

[Florestan]

Says i, as well.

What if I don't believe you?

[Florestan]

True religion has always been an elitist affair.

It is precisely against this arrogant and smug religious elitism (who besides being insufferable, engenders the only too normal reaction of becoming an atheist just as aggressive and supercilious) that Christ has preached and acted. God revealed Himself in all His glory to fishermen, publicans and prostitutes and they instantly recognized and accepted Him, while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of) derided, scorned and finally crucified Him by proxies.

Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

Just to cheer you up a little...I read somewhere that Mick Jagger owns 37 different recordings of the Eroica

[Florestan]

It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas. 

The first and foremost function of good literature is to tell a good story in a language best suited to it. In this respect I'd say that not only Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario Vargas Llosa, but also Andrei Makine, David Lodge, Juan Marse and Amin Maalouf can stand the comparison.

[jowcol]

It is precisely against this arrogant and smug religious elitism (who besides being insufferable, engenders the only too normal reaction of becoming an atheist just as aggressive and supercilious) that Christ has preached and acted. God revealed Himself in all His glory to fishermen, publicans and prostitutes and they instantly recognized and accepted Him, while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of) derided, scorned and finally crucified Him by proxies.

Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

When discussing such broad terms, one may wish to be a bit cautious in using terms like "always" and "never"--  such terms are very easy to disprove by counter example, are they not?

I tend to lean towards your side of the camp-- but the fact is there is documented coexistence of both strains throughout history, and both have contributed to our culture.  The more important issue, to me, is how does either distinction pass the "so what" test and and be put into practice?   There is a lot one can say about whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, but how does that affect the taste?