Lecture I.1.1 - The Celebration of Life

This forum is for focused discussions on The Collected Lectures of Joseph Campbell. Each lecture has its own dedicated conversation.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I guess it is absurd imagining someone who has listened to Wagner and studied Goethe and Joyce finding joy in the sound and lyrics of the Dead - at least it is for those who project their own imagination onto what they believe the live Grateful Dead experience must have been like (usually informed by media representations and the fact that the Dead rarely sounded good in the recording studio) -BB
I listen to a lot of Frank Zappa. He, much like the Dead, is very much misunderstood by those who have never actually sought to understand his music beyond the surface veneer of a public image.

We all bring our bias into any situation. Life is subjective, especially when it comes to artistic expression. I find a lot of art to be repulsive and, in a sense, demeaning to the word 'art'. But I am only me and my view is my own. Would I have given an endowment to Robert Mapplethorpe? Probably not. But, that does not mean his subjective experience is invalid.

Many would find Frank Zappa to be offensive. He ran against the grain and challenged every aspect of the music business, human culture and philosophy. In my mind, this is exactly what I want from an artist. I look for those who challenge the status quo and brush off our silly notions of what is 'proper' and in 'good taste' (Dada).

I see Joe as a rebel. He was very subversive in my mind. He both extolled the virtues of religious systems and kicked the foundational stones right out from under them at the same time. For a man, who was just a little older than my grandfather, he was a pretty damned hip dude! I have always seen him as someone who was open to possibility. Is there anything more we can be than that? Open to possibility?

I am often 'slow coming to the party', as it goes. An experience has to run the gauntlet of my subjective mental processes. My bias will color my view. If I am mindful of this, I have a chance of seeing something in a new light of possibility. I have an opportunity to learn and grow. When I think of Joseph Campbell, I think of a man standing next to me on the moon, looking back at the Earth and saying..."Thou Art That"...

In POM, Campbell told Moyers in no uncertain terms that John Lennon, the poster child for counter-culture heresy and its excesses, was a Hero. Campbell's "attitude, as I so often realize, is not unlike my own. " -Clemsy
John Lennon was a human trying to make a positive difference. He was flawed, like you and me...all of us. But he had the courage to swim against the tide which lifted him to shores of the land of milk and honey. I think this is why he is so often despised by conservative types...they hate someone who is successful and still has the audacity to criticize the system which provided their good fortune. So the conservative is often caught in the same orthodoxy as the religious zealot. Lennon's heresy was peace.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

Scarlett
Associate
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 5:00 am

Post by Scarlett »

Clemsy Wrote:
Would you have burned your draft card, noman? Or would you have gone to Vietnam? It was heresy to question the draft or the war.
Why does it have to be one or the other?

My Dad did not wait for the draft -- he signed up to fight in the Vietnam war.

Now my Dad is one of the kindest, gentlest people I know. He is not a macho aggressive type of male. He is the type of guy who rarely yells (except during those times his daughters broke a rule or two!) He is known for being calm. He never kills insects! Growing up, we had a mouse in the basement. My Dad refused to kill it. We tried to trap it and did catch it alive. I think my Dad wanted to set it free, but my Mom bashed the poor little one's head in before it had a chance!

I was only five, but for some reason that story always stuck with me.

My Dad and I were just talking about this the other day. I said Dad, "I just don't understand. How -- why did you join the war to fight in Vietnam?" (My brother recently joined the army and he was reminiscing quite a bit).

He said that he was young and he needed discipline. He said he doesn't believe in violence or that war solves anything.

But he also said that he would do it again.

I think it takes real courage to say "yes" to something you know is repulsive and horrible and pointless and violent.

Saying "yes" not because you are giving into the violence of life...

Saying "yes" not because you believe it to be right -- but because that is what your heart is telling you to do given the choices offered at the time.

My Dad's heart is one that calls him to fight the fight if the ugliness of life such as war, presents its monstrous face at his door. His heart calls him to do what he can to protect his loved ones and the innocent -- if the times call for action.

Now Gandhi and King -- their hearts were telling them to say "yes" in a different way. Thank god!

I'm such a dork, but I can't help but think of Lord of the Rings and the hobbits’ decisions to fight the dark force. (Yes, Clemsy, I know that in the real world, unfortunately people in power decide what the good force is and what the bad force is.)

It's about choices -- from the heart.

Look -- everyone here knows more about the Vietnam War than I do. I'm not bringing this up to philosphize about the moralities of the war. Gosh if I were alive, I probably would have protested the war. I got into argument with my family when we invaded Iraq.

But I think the heart of the matter is that we participate in this "circle" of heresy (as littlewing points out) in many ways. However, one day we grow up and reflect on the systems of thought we enage ourselves in.
And ask ourselves....

Are we acting from the heart?

littlewing thank you for your post. I also thought it was great.

littlewing wrote:
Here's the circle: New heretical idea (rocks fall from the sky?!) lead to stories and myth that connect those falling rocks with why we care: from how they affect us to why we are who we are. Mythology gels into a belief system; becomes not only an explanation but a guide. As such, it grows into something we can fall back on; refer to for personal growth: an Orthodoxy. Eventually, people love this Orthodoxy to death: it grows more concrete; the rules more rigid. People, being people, use it for not only growth, but greed and control. Rigidity can be a wall of safety to lean on; but will eventually be a wall holding one away from a larger reality. Literally, all the geo-political Walls built, like the Berlin Wall, were built for safety (from the pov of those who built them).....

I think what noman warns of is the huge disruption that total overthrow brings. Setting out to destroy a "wrong" instead of or without also championing a "right" is like burning down the whole forest at once to start over with seeds and fire. The ancient forest may come from seeds and fire; but a healthy forest combines fire with nurse trees; overstory with open meadow to transition from succession to succession. We are finding out from hard experience that if you cut all the Old Growth away from the forest, you lose the balance of the forest; and the whole thing dies. Our current Orthodoxy buys into its stories as The Truth rather than the Metaphor; the explainer of Truth. That is its rigidity; its Wall.
I don't think the roots of the Catholic Church are dried up. The doctrine -- the rigidity of the Church that says it's our way or the highway -- that to me is dried up.

But a Church is made of people not just doctrines.

And people make rules and they break rules.

I was disillusioned and a bit angry with the Catholic Church in my twenties. Now, I feel blessed that I didn't burn all my bridges.

Campbell taught me to imagine a different way of being and participating in my childhood religion.

Now, I know if I take my ideas to the Pope, he would probably say, "Well, now, now, my dear, you aren't really Catholic in your beliefs are you?"

And I would say, "Yes! Yes! Yes -- you are right! But can I stay in your field and water your flowers a bit. You have such a beautiful garden!"


---Scarlett

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

Hi Scarlett!

Perhaps I should have been clearer: If one believed in the service they were rendering, then going was the correct thing to do. The character Charlie Sheen plays in Platoon exemplifies this sentiment. "Why should only the poor kids go to war?"

The warrior isn't responsible for the policies of the politicians or the generals. Neither are the primary objectives of the war the business of the warrior. The warrior's business is the survival of both himself and his comrades. Vietnam vets were vilified at the end of that nasty piece of business. That was wrong and profoundly so. However, the country was coming to terms with having engaged in a 'wrong' war, in which many, many innocents were horribly killed. The unfortunate target of that angst was the veteran. The veteran is as much a casualty of war as the innocents who die, especially since thier own innocence is taken from them. In a sense, they do experience a death.

This is exacerbated when they are used in a war that is wrong.

However, what of the youth who looks at the war as wrong? Who is horrified at the death of innocents and peers? Do you surrender yourself to the dogma of mandatory conscription?

Or do you commit an act of heresy?

Muhammed Al was vilified for refusing to serve. That was as wrong as the vilification of the vets.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss »

Scarlett wrote:I don't think the roots of the Catholic Church are dried up. The doctrine -- the rigidity of the Church that says it's our way or the highway -- that to me is dried up.
Exactly what Campbell means by orthodoxy - the "my way or the highway" approach. That kills a myth. On the other hand, there are vast numbers of individuals who experience for themselves the efficacy of communion when they partake in the flesh and blood of God, who experience the power of the ritual, who are moved by the myth that underlies the doctrine and have a direct experience of the Mystery through their participation in the Church.

That is what continues to give the Church life - that for so many people it's not a question of orthodox dogma, but an experience of the living myth behind the dogma.

Keep playing in the Garden, Scarlett - the more people who do that, the more abundant the spirit in the Church...

littlewing
Associate
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:08 pm
Location: coastal NC

Post by littlewing »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not so that there is such a thing as a healthy Orthodoxy? I think of this as a mythology/values system that serves to help the people within it to grow; an interpretation of who we are here we can fall back on. Healthy orthodoxy would be in that part of the cycle between a growing set of stories not yet formed; and the mistaking of the stories themselves as a concrete and immutable truth rather than a guide and a way.

I once had a roommate who knew me through a space in time when I opened up to a belief system that shot down some dearly held beliefs. She encouraged my uncomfortableness, noting that perhaps the most spiritual a person can be; and the closest to one's own truth, is in that space of unrest when you aren't sure of what you think you know. She pointed out those spaces of time don't last long. Humans at best come out for brief periods into the vastness unknown of spirituality; then run back into the arms of a way of belief.

I once read Campbell's classes didn't usually change his students' source of spirituality (their religion); it gave them a deeper understanding of what's spiritual within the structure; how to use it to grow. We all grab on and hold a form of spirituality (mine is a little eclectic; I have retained what was wonderful in the religion I was reared in; and reject claiming it as a current religion I follow... it morphed. lol So I've soaked up a lot of other wisdom from mostly the East (not incongruent with how I was reared).

Though Campbell claimed no religion, he did have a church: Chartes Cathedral. The Church itself; the ceremony; the Latin; the whole ritual must have expressed a deep spirituality in his heart. Can't see how you can go wrong following those footsteps, Scarlett!

Thanks for the great violin music that ran through your post, noman! It was sweet and haunting.
I’ve always thought of the artist as a person who matures to become a child.
Yes, to "become as a little child" requires going through a complex morass of grown-upness to reach the maturity of knowing what of it to drop... and become as a child!

I think if the great masters of classical music were here today, many would have been rock and roll stars. Jimi's musical genious and so many others reflect that. I loved Uncle Frank (shh, my contemporary!) as we who love his sharp wit, no sacred cows approach have come to call Zappa. He was called sexist (hey, maybe he was...I never bothered to judge); but sure appreciated his work in Congress against censorship. I saw Mapplethorpe's main exhibit in Cincinatti; but had not the patience to wait in a long line to see the porn. Hey, he was documenting his life; not pulling people into a room to sell pseudosex. It was a fantastic exhibit, both artistically and as a documentary reflection of society: the best of art. Glad he got the endowment! Isn't part of what society pays artists for is to reflect back to us who we are? the good, the bad, the ugly....


Clemsy and Bodhi, thanks for all your attention to these threads; and really, I didn't have the time to post all that great stuff on Lennon, and hippie movement in general.
lw

jonsjourney
Associate
Posts: 3191
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:24 pm
Location: Earth

Post by jonsjourney »

I have been re-reading Myths To Live By and ran across this section, which I think applies to this discussion, at least from my individual perspective...

Joe is talking about how we will recocile our old systems, which are under the wrecking ball of science and reason...
It is my considered belief that the best answer to this critical problem will come from the findings of pscyhology, and specifically those findings having to do with the source and nature of myth. For since it has always been on myths that the moral orders of societies have been founded, the myths canonized as religion, and since the impact of science on myths results-apparantly inevitably-in moral disequilibration, we must now ask whether it is not possible to arrive scientifically (emphasis in text) at such an understanding of the life-supporting nature of myths that, in criticizing their archaic features, we do not misrepresent and disqualify their necessity-throwing out, so to say, the baby (whole generations of babies) with the bath.
Myths To Live By pgs 11-12.
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher... or, as his wife would have it, an idiot." -Douglas Adams

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

It was wrong for me to judge the Dead. The band that is. Their artistry. Especially when all I know comes from the PBS documentary from long back. I’ve always thought of their concerts more as myth-rituals, like the BMF and Rainbow mentioned. And just like a religious ceremony, there’s something you just have to feel to appreciate. That’s my impression anyway, naïve though it may be.

Mark Twain quoted fellow humorist Edgar Wilson Nye when he said, “Wagner’s music is better than it sounds.”
Campbell was a man of his times and his reaction to the counter-culture was more the rule than the exception for his generation. Time allowed a more balanced perspective, and many, I think including Campbell, realized the impulse that gave rise to the 60's revolution was quite valid, even if aspects of it were naive to juvenile.

In POM, Campbell told Moyers in no uncertain terms that John Lennon, the poster child for counter-culture heresy and its excesses, was a Hero. Campbell's "attitude, as I so often realize, is not unlike my own. "

- Clemsy
Oh goodness gracious me. I thought we weren’t going to get into this? But I’m the same as you. I can’t resist because your vision is always so diametrically opposed to mine. Time should by now allow a more balanced understanding of Campbell, and Lennon. Campbell said Lennon was a hero for his artistry and exposing Westerners to some Eastern ideas. I don’t believe he cared much for his peace activism.
Moyers: We seem to worship celebrities today, not heroes.

Campbell: Yes, and that’s too bad. A questionnaire was one sent around one of the high schools in Brooklyn which asked, “What would you like to be” Two thirds of the students responded, “A celebrity.” They had no notion of having to give of themselves in order to achieve something.

Moyers: Just to be known.

Campbell: Just to be known, to have fame – name and fame. It’s too bad.

Moyers: What did you think of the outpouring over John Lennon’s death? Was he a hero?

Campbell: Oh, he definitely was a hero.

Moyers: Explain that in a mythological sense.

Campbell: In the mythological sense, he was an innovator. The Beatles brought forth an art from for which there was a readiness. Somehow, they were in perfect tune with their time. Had they turned up thirty years before, their music would have fizzled out. The public hero is sensitive to the needs of his time. The Beatles brought a new spiritual depth into popular music which started the fad, let’s call it, for meditation and Oriental music. Oriental music had been over here for years, as a curiosity, but now, after the Beatles, our young people seem to know what it’s about. We are hearing more and more of it, and it’s being used in terms of its original intention as a support for meditations. That’s what the Beatles started.

POM, p163 (small book)
I’m glad Moyers didn’t ask directly about John’s peace activism because I suspect Campbell would have had to scoot around it like a politician. You can’t say anything bad about a guy who the public loves that much on a national broadcast. Lennon was undoubtedly a fine artist, loved by millions, and he was tragically murdered for no reason. The artist is a hero, of course. But my friend - I don’t consider a two week bed-in an act of heroism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed-In

One thing that we young boomers could never get a grip on is how irrelevant most of us were. Nixon didn’t go from 500,000 troops in 68 to zero troops in 73 as the result of a bunch of long haired hippies doing drugs, listening to rock concerts, and chanting slogans. We were annoying. Just – annoying. And that’s about it.

How did Campbell feel about hippyism generally?
P145 Actually I guess the big crisis in my popular career came in the 1960s when people were taking LSD and my book The Hero with a Thousand Faces became a kind of mythological road map for the hippies.

- The Heroes Journey (1980s I believe)
When I look for heroism with respect to that disastrous war, I like John Kerry’s story. He served as an officer from 66 to 70, but after serving joined a 20,000 member organization of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. And it was effective.

But a person certainly doesn’t have to be a soldier to be a hero or champion of peace. Mahatma Gandhi was involved in a horrific and divisive civil war in India. He drew journalists into his bed chamber on one occasion just like our hero John Lennon. But in this case, Gandhi was fasting unto death if necessary in an attempt to stop the violence, to pay reparations to the newly formed country of Pakistan, and to force a peace treaty. And it was effective.

There’s a touching story about the one hundredth anniversary of Gandhi’s birth. The year was 1969. A member of the Gandhi Peace Foundation was in Iran. He was to give a speech in Gandhi’s honor. But he was taken aside beforehand and instructed not to say anything that might offend the Shah of Iran. So, the time comes, the speaker stands before the audience, nods to the Shah, and says in slow deliberate voice,

“There is little need to say much about the life of Mohandas Gandhi. He is known throughout the world. I would just like to call to attention his possessions at the time of his death: two cotton dhotis - one shawl - a pocket watch – a dinner bowl and plate - a walking stick - a pen - a pin cushion - a pair of sandals - the Bhagavad Gita - and a pair of glasses.”

And then he sat down.

You never know if these stories about famous people are true. And given that it is said to have occurred in 1969 gives me pause. There were a lot of hippie myths going around back then. But I still love this little story true or not.

Gandhi’s possessions have been in the news recently. An American peace activist, James Otis, who was an admirer of Gandhi, collected many of these items over the years. On March 5th, 2009, he intended to auction them off against a strong protest from the Indian government and threats of criminal charges. After a little wrangling the Indian government elected to purchase the items from the New York auction with donated money. They paid $1.8 million. Now, Otis is suing to keep the items.

Back to our hero. In the late sixties John Lennon co-wrote a song that became an establishment hating icon: Piggies
Have you seen the little piggies
Crawling in the dirt
And for all the little piggies
Life is getting worse
Always having dirt to play around in.

Have you seen the bigger piggies
In their starched white shirts
You will find the bigger piggies
Stirring up the dirt
Always have clean shirts to play around in.

In their sties with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon.

- John Lennon and Paul McCartney
[Edited 3/24/09] Actually, George Harrison wrote the song Piggies. He wrote 25 of the Beatles songs including such classics as Here Comes the Sun, Something, and one of my favorites Within You and Without You, haunting and spiritual.

When Lennon was gunned down tragically and senselessly in 1980, his net worth was estimated at 40 million dollars. Last time we talked about Lennon in this forum I said 400 million. That was my mind inflating. But he did have a great deal of money as one would expect of an artist as successful as he. Sure, he was a hero. But to think that he had anything going for him in terms of ideology or role model is just part of the whole delusion of which I speak.

[Edited 3/24/09] Another Beatle mistake I made in this post has to do with John Lennon’s net worth when he died in 1980. I recall, way back then, the newscasters saying his net worth was estimated at about 400 million dollars. When I did a quick Web search I found answers closer to 30 million. I figured I must have remembered wrong. It was long ago. But now I believe 400 million is closer to the truth, the 30 million figure a result of peoples mind deflating. Four hundred million dollars in 1980 dollars would be about 1.2 billion 2009 dollars. This from a man whose 1971 signature song Imagine, reads as follows:
Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

- from Imagine, by John Lennon, 1971
In a 1980 interview, just before his tragic death, John Lennon and his second wife Yoko Ono are asked about the incongruence between their perceived philosophy and their current wealth:
LENNON: Where do people get off saying the Beatles should give $200,000,000 to South America? You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn't mean a damn thing. After they've eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what? It goes round and round in circles. You can pour money in forever. After Peru, then Harlem, then Britain. There is no one concert. We would have to dedicate the rest of our lives to one world concert tour, and I'm not ready for it. Not in this lifetime, anyway. [Ono rejoins the conversation.]

PLAYBOY: On the subject of your own wealth, the New York Post recently said you admitted to being worth over $150,000,000 and----

LENNON: We never admitted anything.

PLAYBOY: The Post said you had.

LENNON: What the Post says -- OK, so we are rich; so what?

PLAYBOY: The question is, How does that jibe with your political philosophies? You're supposed to be socialists, aren't you?

LENNON: In England, there are only two things to be, basically: You are either for the labor movement or for the capitalist movement. Either you become a right-wing Archie Bunker if you are in the class I am in, or you become an instinctive socialist, which I was. That meant I think people should get their false teeth and their health looked after, all the rest of it. But apart from that, I worked for money and I wanted to be rich. So what the hell -- if that's a paradox, then I'm a socialist. But I am not anything. What I used to be is guilty about money. That's why I lost it, either by giving it away or by allowing myself to be screwed by so-called managers.

PLAYBOY: Whatever your politics, you've played the capitalist game very well, parlaying your Beatles royalties into real estate, livestock----

ONO: There is no denying that we are still living in the capitalist world. I think that in order to survive and to change the world, you have to take care of yourself first. You have to survive yourself. I used to say to myself, I am the only socialist living here. [Laughs] I don't have a penny. It is all John's, so I'm clean. But I was using his money and I had to face that hypocrisy. I used to think that money was obscene, that the artists didn't have to think about money. But to change society, there are two ways to go: through violence or the power of money within the system. A lot of people in the Sixties went underground and were involved in bombings and other violence. But that is not the way, definitely not for me. So to change the system -- even if you are going to become a mayor or something -- you need money.

PLAYBOY: To what extent do you play the game without getting caught up in it -- money for the sake of money, in other words?

ONO: There is a limit. It would probably be parallel to our level of security. Do you know what I mean? I mean the emotional-security level as well.

PLAYBOY: Has it reached that level yet?

ONO: No, not yet. I don't know. It might have.

PLAYBOY: You mean with $150,000,000? Is that an accurate estimate?

ONO: I don't know what we have. It becomes so complex that you need to have ten accountants working for two years to find out what you have. But let's say that we feel more comfortable now.

http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinter ... okoono.htm
Yoko Ono’s response is telling for several reasons. For one, she actually uses the word ‘hypocrisy’ which to me is the cornerstone of hippyism. But also, she explains that the world, which needs to be changed, can be changed by violence, or money, and believes money is the better way – but first one has to survive. She has survived well with her deceased husband’s several hundred million dollars, and has managed to give a little to charity - from what I can find on the Web, very little.

John Lennon and the Beatles meant a lot to me. I remember being moved to tears upon hearing of Lennon’s death way back in 1980. Artists, such as Richard Wagner, Pablo Picasso, Jackson Pollack, Miles Davis, and John Lennon were great artists and heroes to be sure. They were complex, unruly personalities as is often the case with highly creative people. But I would hope that people appreciate them for what they were, as spectacular artists, as complex personalities, and as troubled souls - and not for their philosophy or way of life.

Joseph Campbell too, is a hero to me. He wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t a saint as some like to make him out to be. But he seems like an extraordinarily decent man with a philosophy of life that I can admire – and would encourage people to emulate. He possessed a solid core of values and lived a life that was an expression of those values.

And all I am asking…
is to give truth a chance.

[End of 3/24/2009 Edit]




Now I know you’re going to tell me it’s unfair to compare Lennon to Gandhi and you’re right, you’re right, and you’re absolutely right. But I’m just trying to put this Boomer sense of heroism into perspective. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, and Hillary Clinton are contemporary heroes to many people. So was John Lennon and Jerry Garcia. And that’s fine. But it’d be nice to have someone like a Gandhi once in a while.

Something fell apart in the late sixties. What I’m talking about far exceeds the matter of the war in Vietnam. It has little to do with it really. This interview with Michael Toms was recorded, I believe, about 1984:
Campbell: For instance, in the colleges the liberal arts are – sinking, and everyone’s going in for the professional specialization which does not tell you how to be a human being. Does not give you the rich information that comes from reading the classics; Plato, Goethe, Shakespeare, oh, what do we want with that? What’s the relevance? You know the term – and uh – all of this came in in the sixties – as far as my experience goes.

MT: Well at the same time there was a re-emergence of the liberal arts in the sixties – but it kind of went by the boards in the last few years.

Campbell: Well – I – umm - don’t know what to say about the sixties. It was very politically oriented. There were two things that were going on there. One was blowing up the buildings on the campus. The other was blowing up your own psyche with LSD. And there was a failure to experience the richness of things as they are and also the privilege of living in this society – knowing what it has given you – you know – in contrast to others. If you’d travelled around a little bit you’d know what we’ve got. And this is something that could be lost. And they seem not to have realized that.

I was terribly disgusted with the sixties. I was glad to get out. I never thought I’d be happy to retire from teaching but I didn’t like what was going on.

- Myth as Metaphor, Lost Teachings, with Michael Toms
He didn’t warm up to or come to realize the value of hippie liberalism. He was just dealing with it as we have all had to deal with it. We all try to be accommodating. Sure, we could argue about how bad it was or wasn’t partaking in the culture war if we wanted to. But it isn’t my intention to play the role of conservative fundie just for the sake of argument. I seek the truth. And the truth, as I seez it, is a value melt-down beginning in the late 60s and early 70s and continuing to this day on both sides of the culture war, with each side all too eager to point the finger of blame.

This is one of many books published over the years advocating higher education reform:

I have been a Harvard professor for more than thirty years, having started in 1974. Over the decades I have heard many academic discussions about teaching, about the curriculum, about grading, about athletics, and about responding to the student misdeeds. I have almost never heard discussions among professors about making students better people. Professors are warned to look for signs of emotional distress in students and to steer them to mental health services. But what most students need more than psychiatric referrals is help shaping the lives that they themselves, and not their parents, will lead. Presidents, deans, and professors rarely tell students simple truths, for example that the strategizing and diligence that got them into the college of their choice may not, if followed thoughtlessly, lead to an adult life they will find worth living.

- Harry R. Lewis, (Former Dean of Harvard College), Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education, 2006
Compare this to my quote Joseph Campbell made in 1984. “…all of this came in in the sixties – as far as my experience goes”, he says. I believe the loss of soul that began in the sixties continues to this day. And for me, this is a little bit more important then whether the man, Joseph Campbell, in his seventies, got into acid rock.

* * * * * * *

JonsJourney,

When I began to look into this period of the late 60s and early 70s I was surprised to find out how many New Age gurus came out of the psychology departments. Timothy Leary was a Harvard psychologist. Richard Alpert, (Ram Dass), who wrote a hippie bible ‘Be Here Now’, earned his doctorate in psychology at Stanford. Helen Schucman, author of ‘A course in Miracles’ was associate professor of psychology at Columbia. Marilyn Ferguson, who wrote ‘The Aquarian Conspiracy’ which some have called the New Age bible, began that effort with a book titled ‘The Brain Revolution’ and a news letter called ‘The brain/mind bulletin.’

I was too young, at the time to understand this crossing over from science/psychology to myth/spirituality. As usual, Campbell was right on top of it, seeing the danger of a complete abandonment of those archaic myths, which is why I responded the way I did to your metaphor of burning down a forest in order for it to grow.

* * * * * * *

I want to take the chance here to thank you all for providing a forum with such quality people and ideas. Nowhere else could I trace these thoughts. The university may have lost its soul, but make no mistake, it’s alive and well at the JCF.

- NoMan
Last edited by noman on Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy »

:roll:

Noman... Piggies was written by George Harrison. The song has nothing to do with having money, but with a particular sort of unaware person who may or may not have tons of money. Missed the target and took out the wall in back of you with that one dude.

I've no intention of going into this anymore than I have, noman. My response has already been written elsewhere. If you feel the need to continue with this, take to the topic you dedicated to it so this one can get back on track.

Indeed, that's probably where anything I have to say on this has been said.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

got me Clemsy. :oops: And Harrison was the spiritual guy as I recall.

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

Gandhi’s possessions have been in the news recently. An American peace activist, James Otis, who was an admirer of Gandhi, collected many of these items over the years. On March 5th, 2009, he intended to auction them off against a strong protest from the Indian government and threats of criminal charges. After a little wrangling the Indian government elected to purchase the items from the New York auction with donated money. They paid $1.8 million. Now, Otis is suing to keep the items.
That says it all, NoMan and there is no better way to highlight what is happening in our world right now than how you’ve just articulated it in this paragraph. Joseph Campbell was one of those heroes who did the ‘hard yakka’ of preparing the ground for the Holy Spirit’s arrival, which ground in turn gets used by all sorts of people with all sorts of purposes. :evil: What’s new? :roll:

:) Thank you for saving me again NoMan, to me you are a true companion on this journey.
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman »

You’re too kind Evinnra. :oops: My savioress.

A strange coincidence happened when I was working on that post. I have been reading about Hinduism lately, and found a story about the Shah of Iran and a spokesperson from the Gandhi Peace Foundation. It was something that happened in 1969. I thought maybe I could find a version of the story by Googling. But what I found instead was Gandhi’s possessions, in the news, in the last month. Had I heard about it in the news in the last month it would certainly have caught my attention as I was reading about India, Hinduism, and Gandhi.

I don’t know what to make of the guy who decided to auction off Gandhi’s belongings. He collected this stuff out of admiration. He must have paid a lot for them. He said he had no idea it would create controversy with the Indian Government. I suppose, when he found out, he should have called off the auction right away and cut a deal with the Indian Government. But then maybe the only deal he was facing was a lawsuit or civil action. So he made some extravagant demands for their return within days of the auction. He said he would return them if they used the items for an international peace tour, or if they increased their spending on Health care by 15% or something like than. Understandably, the Indian Government didn’t want to play with him.
India had bitterly opposed the auction, insisting that Gandhi's belongings were part of the country's national heritage and that their sale was an insult to the memory of a man who rejected material wealth.

The owner, California-based pacifist James Otis, initially insisted the auction would proceed.

With less than an hour to go, he astonished journalists outside the auction house by announcing that "in light of the controversy" he too wanted the sale stopped.

But he was too late and Antiquorum went ahead.


Otis explained through his lawyer that his last-minute opposition to the auction had been because he feared that someone unsuitable, like a foreign dictator, would win.

Mallya's promise to repatriate the items resolved that worry.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090306/t ... b9277.html
With this little info, I don’t think James Otis, who admired Gandhi, should be pegged as a Roman soldier gambling for Christ’s robe. Unfortunately for Otis, there might be this shadow image hanging over him the rest of his life. But there is something ironic about this whole scenario considering Gandhi’s message to the world.

- NoMan

Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra »

noman wrote:You’re too kind Evinnra. :oops: My savioress.
:oops: Aww, what have I ever done to deserve this? No, YOU are the one who is too kind NoMan! :P
I don’t know what to make of the guy who decided to auction off Gandhi’s belongings. He collected this stuff out of admiration. He must have paid a lot for them. He said he had no idea it would create controversy with the Indian Government. I suppose, when he found out, he should have called off the auction right away and cut a deal with the Indian Government. But then maybe the only deal he was facing was a lawsuit or civil action. So he made some extravagant demands for their return within days of the auction. He said he would return them if they used the items for an international peace tour, or if they increased their spending on Health care by 15% or something like than. Understandably, the Indian Government didn’t want to play with him.


- NoMan
Personally, I wouldn’t bother forming any opinion of this guy – he could still be a nice fellow for all we know :? - since he is just a 'thread in a rug of global commercialism'. What strikes me about this situation is the general shift of focus regarding what motivates people . A shift of focus from emotions such as altruism, idealism to what brings home the bacon to competing interests out there in the world. It can't be true that everyone is cashing in on ANY God given opportunity to make a profit for them selves. :evil:

I personally refuse to believe that money is everything for everyone at all times. under all sorts of conditions. There are other types of 'profits' that are equally relevant for survival , no? :idea:
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com

Scarlett
Associate
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 5:00 am

Post by Scarlett »

Great Conversation Everybody!!!!

Clemsy wrote:
However, what of the youth who looks at the war as wrong? Who is horrified at the death of innocents and peers? Do you surrender yourself to the dogma of mandatory conscription?

Or do you commit an act of heresy?
You were clear enough Clemsy :) and I agree... if a young person looks deep in their heart, they must decide the best way to follow that calling.

So is heresy following one's heart?

Is heresy a stirring of the spirit that asks us to follow a voice within that guides our souls onto a particular pathway that may or may not be the norm during our journeys in time and space?
(If you are a true atheist -- which I am not -- then I suppose the "voice" would be a neurological issue!)

However, the ego I suppose can get in the way of really listening to the heart.


Bodhibliss Wrote:
Keep playing in the Garden, Scarlett - the more people who do that, the more abundant the spirit in the Church...
Well, yes when you have a son to raise like I do, playing in a familiar garden is helpful and nourishing. I had to come to peace with the fact that I didn't quite "fit in" as a traditional Catholic, but I still wanted to expose my son to a religion (doctrine) that didn't quite match up with my evolving beliefs. But as Campbell says, children need something concrete... So it's been a blessing to have that tie into my community (because where I live, there are Catholics everywhere!)

But thankfully, there are other gardens that I play in as well....

Evinnra wrote:
Joseph Campbell was one of those heroes who did the ‘hard yakka’ of preparing the ground for the Holy Spirit’s arrival, which ground in turn gets used by all sorts of people with all sorts of purposes.
I never thought of it that way -- thank you for that insight!
For all men live by truth and stand in need of expression. In love, in art, in avarice, in politics, in labor, in games, we study to utter our painful secret. The man is only half himself, the other half is his expression.

-- From The Poet by Ralph Waldo Emerson

http://www.poets.org/notebookdetail.php ... kID/376910

Life is beautiful and often the meaning of life seems esoteric -- yet we "aspire" to dig into this mystery. And I believe we need each other -- we really are connected and our choices reflect the light we choose to give to the world.
Nature is still ours. It is enough. It is in the universe. And what it shows is that mysterium tremendum, that mystery that was shown in the first place. And that is the basic problem of the poet, and of the myths, as I said in the first place, to reconcile consciousness to its own source—namely nature, or what one might conceive to be within or behind nature. Secondary to that is the social situation. Now in our society, the social problem is turned over largely to the police and to Congress as a purely practical matter. However, the creatures that constitute the society—these are today the neighbor, they really are. The idea of a personal God living somehow somewhere else, out there… There is no out there anymore; there is no up there. It's awfully difficult to validate, but it seems to me—if one's looking for the personality of God—it's right here in the multitudinous personalities of those around us.

Everything I find in the poets—in the scientists who push through to this mystery—points not to the animals as our neighbors, not to the plant, not to the planet, but to that other one, that Thou whom you face, who's not the thou you would want him to be; he's Other. And it's that recognition of otherness that is absolutely basic and necessary.

Now, this doesn't mean that you have to give up your otherness in recognition of him; it may darn well be collision. But it has to be collision with reverence and respect.

-- Joseph Campbell from the Celebration of Life
Some food for thought from the Trappist Monk, Thomas Merton. He had quite an interesting journey in life:
It is possible to misunderstand the true import of Hui Neng if one is unduly anxious to bring Zen a little closer to conventional Western ideas of contemplation, so that Zen experience can be more clearly demonstrated to be something akin to supernatural mysticism, that is to say, to an ‘I-Thou’ experience of God. To reconcile Zen with this type of union with God is a very difficult task, because it seems to involve one, again, in the subject- object relationship which is discarded by the Zen experience of the void. But is it after all necessary to cling to this one viewpoint? Is Martin Buber’s formula absolutely the only one that validly describes this ultimate spiritual experience? Is a personal encounter with a personal God limited to an experience of God as ‘object’ of knowledge and love on the part of a clearly defined, individual, and empirical subject? Or does not the empirical self vanish in the highest forms of Christian mysticism? (Pages 29-30)

-- Thomas Merton from Mystics and Zen Masters
-- Scarlett

Neoplato
Associate
Posts: 3907
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:02 pm
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Post by Neoplato »

Is a personal encounter with a personal God limited to an experience of God as ‘object’ of knowledge and love on the part of a clearly defined, individual, and empirical subject? Or does not the empirical self vanish in the highest forms of Christian mysticism?
I don’t know how I missed this one. I must have been “in the weeds”. :wink:

The embodiment of “god” into a personality seems to be the easiest way to conceptualize a “supreme being”. However, it appears this personification of god is really just interpreting a “myth” literally. Instead of trying to conceptualize a “supreme being” in the likeness of man, we should focus on understanding how “being is supreme”.

I would say that in any form of “mysticism”, a person’s persona dissolves as well as the “god” persona that the person projects on the notion of a “supreme being”. Then it appears, after this persona notion has dissolved, that a person can identify that all “being” is supreme, and that there is no separation from being. Hence, a ”Thou art That” concept arises.

And if someone is not aware that this concept has been around for thousands of years, the person probably beings to doubt his/her sanity. :)
Infinite moment, grants freedom of winter death, allows life to dawn.

CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear »

Clemsy,

Is there a way to download the transcripts of the lectures, on PDF maybe, all on one long run of text?

Carmela
Once in a while a door opens, and let's in the future. --- Graham Greene

Locked