Thursday, June 14, 2018

make way for the bad guy, part one

"What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of fuckin' assholes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be? You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy! Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you. Come on. Make way for the bad guy. There's a bad guy comin' through! Better get outta his way!"

Tony Montana in Scarface


Oscar Wilde said that disobedience is man's original virtue, but it was woman, not man, that stood her ground. It was Eve that exercised her own free-will in contravention of commandment and in so doing she gave birth to the age that saw its culmination in Jesus Christ. The redemption of Eve is also the redemption of the Devil, who of course persuaded her in the first place. There needs be a new heaven for there to be a new earth, and its 'Genesis' will be The Return to the Garden. The key to the gates of the new Eden: the rebirth of the Goddess from the sorrow and anger of Eve.

What sort of man lets his woman take the rap for a dubious crime they were both party too? By failing to stand by his woman Adam commits the first betrayal - the one to which all others refer and are reflections of. The history of the West is one long story of the feminine betrayed. Feminism brought this to light and stoked the fires of rebellion for a while but somehow the feminine remains as denigrated as ever. Do we value sensitivity or do we pathologise it? Do we protect and enrich the living earth or do we rape it? Do we even know what we are saying when we talk of feminism anymore? It is not about equal rights - that has been achieved. It is something more than this, something deeper.

The best selling book in the Scandinavian countries (excepting the Bible) is 'Men Who Hate Women' by the late Stieg Larsson. We know the book in English as 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' and this name change speaks volumes by itself. These 'women-hating men'....from whence do they come?...and why do we see them so often in positions of power? Authority over, domination...these are extreme examples of the masculine - pathological examples. In a world untempered by the feminine, bereft of any 'council of grandmothers', the masculine becomes monstrous.

The masculine should protect and activate, not dominate. It protects when it recognises and
listens to the feminine, for without the feminine it is nothing, for there would be nothing to protect. It activates the feminine when it recognises its role as protector, and so the feminine guides the male in turn. We are lacking guidance, that much is obvious. And we are lacking guidance because the feminine has still not been recognised and activated. And so we protect property, but not the land.

When men become deficient in character, lacking that particular quality which makes them inimitably them, lacking the properties that distinguish one thus, it is then that we see a corresponding and compensatory movement towards property defined as land or assets owned exclusively.

What a man lacks in himself, he compensates for. Lacking properties he acquires property...lacking quality he becomes absorbed in quantity and the dream of infinite riches,
until it becomes a nightmare.....

Midas loved money above all so he wished that all he touched would turn to gold. Thus was he cursed. The world is dead to an avaricious man...his lust to possess renders all subjectivity mute....he perceives only objects to possess and becomes a demonic force - an insatiable appetite.

Midas atones by washing his hands in the river Pactolus..the gold is leached from his hands by the flowing waters and he returns to share his wealth with all. Midas is healed through the power of nature, he is healed by the land.

'Midas, no longer lured by dreams of riches,
Took to the woods, became a nature-lover;
He worshipped Pan... '
(Ovid 303).

It is the land that mankind is charged to protect, not property. The land is a gift to all, a gift that keeps on giving as long as it is protected. The land belongs to no one - all life belongs to the land. Any civilisation that is not entirely predicated on this axiom will eventually fall to ruin.

This land is the mother of all, the womb of the world. All things live in, on and through her. We are temporary and mobile excrescences upon the earth. The mother-of-all is the ultimate feminine value, the prime symbol of a feminism rooted in the earth. All exploitation and disrespect towards the feminine springs from an initial alienation from the mother, which itself is symptomatic of an alienation of the mother from the mother-of-all.

A mother's love is the first and defining experience of love we have. The mother represents safety, affection, wisdom, providence, justice and peace. The mother retains a psychic connection to the child long after the cord has been cut. Infancy is a period of gradual and tentative separation,,,a separation that is never total, for no one can outstrip their origins. This connection to the mother, to she who is the vehicle and vessel of our existence, this universal connection is the cornerstone of an authentic feminism.

Feminism as commonly understood concerns itself primarily with equality – with equal access to society for females. Some even take it to mean total equality, in other words the idea that gender is a social construct. Apart from the rather glaring biological evidence to the contrary this would be like trying to get rid of the 'yin' or the 'yang', ie impossible. Polarity is the engine of creation, and the male-female dynamic is one instance of this universal tension.

This tension, as Heraclitus first noted, is creative. It is through a mutual abrasiveness that the logos is served, strife being the father of all things. A feminism that seeks to abolish the differences between men and women betrays the logos and serves neither men nor women.

Men need feminism, real feminism, just as much as women do. It is not a question of gender politics anymore, it is a question of balance, the sacred balance upon which life depends. 

The tarot is a very old artefact and yet in the major arcana we see an equal number of male and female figures. There is the pope and the popesse, the emperor and the empress....every position of authority in the tarot is twinned – has a male and female representative. In indigenous societies we find something similar - there is men's business and women's business. Two discrete sources of authority which temper and complement each other.

In the west these two sources of authority have for centuries been the church
and the state, or a monarchy which is the fusion of the two. When our Monarchs have become cyphers and when the church has become irrelevant we are left with a state whose authority becomes total...and absolute power corrupts, absolutely...

As you would expect Tolkien believed in an absolute monarchy - a fusion of church and state, of heaven and earth in the person of the (returned) king. But perhaps sensing that this was no longer politically possible, Tolkien also expressed his belief in the principles of Anarchism. Though these may seem almost contradictory political positions to hold, Anarchism could also be seen as a democracy of absolute monarchs, in that an anarchist society is one in which every one is sovereign unto themselves.

The Paris commune, the Spanish civil war, Paris 68... abortion after glorious abortion. These grand sacrificial experiments bear testimony to some ineradicable longing in the Western soul, a dream of freedom which seems to hover just out of reach. What is it that prevents us, en masse, from waking up 'from the nightmare of history'? Henry Miller would say that it is the very idea of 'en masse' that is the stumbling block.

Miller had no interest in going to Spain to fight for the Anarchists, although many celebrated authors did. He saw the exercise as futile, a dead end. Instead Miller counterposed the idea of a personal liberation which is always available. Rather than fight for freedom, one
surrenders to it. This freedom is the acceptance of the world as it is, an acceptance that comes only when one realises that the world is a faithful reflection of the general psychic make up, the mirror in which we collectively confront ourselves, and it can no more be changed than our own reflection can.

But where our reflection cannot be changed, our perception of it can....the world is always a world of beauty and poetry when one perceives it clearly and deeply...whatever the general political conditions, the possibility of freedom is always there; and, moreover, life actually wants us to realise this freedom,,,,by making us sick if we do not.

The world has not to be put in order: the world is order incarnate. It is for us to put ourselves in unison with this order, to know what is the world order in contradistinction to the wishful-thinking orders which we seek to impose on one another....
One has to establish the difference of his own peculiar being and in doing so establish his kinship with the whole of humanity, even the very lowest. Acceptance is the key word, but acceptance is precisely the great stumbling block. It has to be total acceptance not conformity.'

The political spectacle is only that – a spectacle. Freedom can't be granted from above, it can only be realised from within. One can only begin to understand from the perspective of myth, and the point of myth is that it refers everything back to to the living individual - to their life and the conflicts therein. Myth shows how the conflicts without
mirror those within, and makes possible that reversal of perspective upon which the recognition of our power depends. I am powerless in the outer world, but I am sovereign in my inner world. The only thing stopping me here is...myself.

Myths, like religions, grow organically over long periods of time. There are originators, real historical figures, but they play second to the myth and its meaning. It doesn't matter that there is conjecture over the historical Jesus for instance, because it is the myth that counts, not historical accuracy.

Myths carry
meaning; historical and scientific facts, by themselves, do not.

If we view myths objectively they lose their potency...their meaning is diminished, for their meaning is proportional to their emotional effect upon us....meaning is always disclosed thus – as an
event: a resonance between the word and our subjectivity....

If we view science or history mythically, they become meaningful.

For instance look at communism through the lens of myth and you will see that it is nothing other than the attempt to secularise Christian values – communism is Christian values without christ. And that is of course why it was so popular (ie resonated at a deep level) and also why it eventually failed, for it is difficult to maintain Christian values without the person of Jesus for he incarnates these values - he makes them real.

Jesus existed, of this there is no doubt, for he is mentioned
specifically in roman and Jewish records. And he was of course a man, indeed he called himself 'the son of man', for this was the whole point: The central meaning of what became the myth of Christianity is not that God condescends to become man but that man discovers the god within. Jesus of Nazareth announces the divinity of humanity and in so doing he sets in motion a process that will result in the end of empire, for empire is the denial of the divinity of man.

Communism thought that it would be the end of empire, instead it became one, for communism also denied the divinity of man.

The divinity of man means that you cannot believe in god until you believe in yourself. Believing in yourself means following your heart, speaking
your truth and facing your fears.

Therefore one's own self is the reference point, the touchstone of truth. This is why miller wrote about himself, for this was the most real thing he could write about. Miller orbits the mystery of his own self and finds the subject matter inexhaustible. 

To use one's own self as the raw material from which is extracted the living ore - this was Millers revolution. The real man beneath the 'civilised' man is exposed, the real man beneath all the vanity, all the pretense of the serious artist/intellectual. His approach makes the artifice of character look like, well, artifice, for characters are just
alter egos of the author - masks that he hides behind. Miller was done hiding: he laid himself bare and in so doing he laid open that which is the mirror of ourselves - the world. And so the Emperor is unclothed and seen for what he is: vain, stupid and cruel - a petty tyrant.
Others had used the self as the object of study before miller, no one more so than Whitman (eg 'Song of Myself'). Whitman is a model for Miller and avowedly so. But, as has been said before, Whitman is a sort of announcement of the 'whole man' whom he sees in the promise and beauty of those around him as well as in himself, whereas Miller seems more like the fulfilment of this promise. Perhaps the simplest difference is that Whitman was a poet and Miller a novelist. A poet can't help speak for all – he is the distiller of truth, the 'unacknowledged legislator of the world', but Miller wasn't interested in this role:

'If I am against the state of the world it is not because I am a moralist it is only because I want to laugh more'.

Miller is apolitical, almost solipsistic in his sense of his own uniqueness and his exultation in it. But it is as if this extreme yields its opposite by some process of psychic inversion. Miller's selfishness is taken to such a degree that it becomes all-encompassing. Miller is never explicitly sympathetic, his kindness, he explains, is just due to his nature - no one else's troubles really bother him. But isn't this just the unalloyed truth? Miller's short story Max and White Phagocytes is a great example of this paradox. Miller evokes more sympathy, more empathy for Max and the plight of all the Maxes in the world, without ever feeling sorry for him. Indeed it is the very lack of pity that matters here. This sort of pity only ever confirms the impotence of the victim. Miller doesn't pity. He is kind, he is generous, but he refuses to pity, for this is the excuse the victim unconsciously desires, the excuse for being a victim, for never having to change...

Miller found out, through his own experience, that whilst fate is in the lap of the gods, destiny is in o
ur own hands.

Living in poverty in New York he gets 10 dollars from a friend and goes to paris, with a typewriter and one book – leaves of grass. In Paris he sleeps on the streets and becomes a survivor....his instincts kick in and he slowly finds his feet and voice. Only by renouncing the safety of society - by rejecting the offer of life on its terms - can a person find their own way. Only by becoming homeless can we return home. Or as TS Eliot said, it is only after exploring ceaselessly that we will return to where we began and know the place for the first time.

The homeless are the new explorers. they are those who, after the whole globe has been charted, have arrived where they began and seen it for the first time. This new world, which they already inhabit, is a palimpsest: a cleaned slate. This new world... what is it but the

We are all homeless, but as with everything else its a matter of being conscious of this. Examining the situation honestly it becomes clear that we are never going to have a home whilst our 'homes' exist primarily as a legal fiction. There has to something more, and this something more is a relationship, a relationship between the land and the individual.

We have lost our trust in
providence, of how the earth provides for us and all life. This is why Bill Mollison said that people who were growing their own food were the most revolutionary force on the planet. To engage with the creative mystery of the soil is to reconnect with the land and literally put roots down. We eat to survive like all animals and yet most of us take little or no direct responsibility for this provision. Only infants are allowed this luxury in the rest of the animal world.

We have forgotten that all the genius of humanity - the inexhaustible inventiveness - is prefigured, perfectly, in nature. Technology is only ever a falling short, a homage. We can never match the efficiencies in nature: a plane will never be able to fly like a bird; no photovoltaic cell will ever match the genius of the leaf; no pharmaceuticals can compare with the healing efficacy of food grown and prepared with love.

Why reinvent the wheel when you can hop aboard the gravy train?

Learning to recognise and utilise that which grows and lives around us is the first principle of any useful idea of education.

How many weeds can you identify? How many trees? And of those you know by name how many do you know by heart? By which I mean – how many of these do you have a relationship with? How many of these beings do you actually value?

This is reality – the reality of Banksy's 'elephant-in-the-room'. Irrepressible life surrounds us and saturates us. 'We' are an ecology of billions of micro-organisms that live within and on us. We are embedded in a matrix of organisms whose interdependence is total. Our unitary identity conceals the reality of our total ecological dependence. And yet we sanitise ourselves and our environment....the balanced ecology of microflora upon which our health depends is compromised in the name of an indiscriminate and suicidal hygiene. 

The first law of life is that it is one. All life is the same life expressing itself in different ways. Hence the overwhelming cellular and biochemical homology across the kingdoms of life. What constitutes health – individual and global – is the integrity and diversity of the ecological matrix. The more forms of life, the more interconnections between these forms of life, the more robust the community. The human is that organism which, uniquely, can dramatically increase or decrease these factors. We can decimate or cultivate, separate or integrate. Permaculture is a new incarnation of the perennial philosophy, it is an alchemical science – one in which the relationship between oneself and ones environment is developed and refined to the benefit of both. 'The return to the garden' means exactly that: the new holy book has 'leaves of grass'. The logos is expressed both as the creative word and creation itself: we are leaves in the book of life as we are leaves on the tree of life and Permaculture represents the marriage of the two..

It was the tree of life that was left alone in Genesis, a teaser of things to come, mentioned only briefly as that tree whose fruit would make Adam and Eve like the gods. From the tree of knowledge we have eaten our fill – we are sick with knowledge, what we need now is the tree of life, the central axis from which the garden of eden radiates outwards; the tree of life which joins earth to heaven, darkness to light. The tree of life is the next stage of the story. The last 2000 years have been an epic drama whose central theme has been man's struggle with dualistic knowledge (good/evil etc etc), which having been resolved finally in the idea of relativity now begins to lose its intensity and place on centre stage. We are not going to fix our problems with more knowledge; the ever growing complexity of knowledge is the problem, simplicity is the solution.

Life is one; (rational) knowledge is two. The simplicity of life means that it is the only 'knowledge' we can have that is not relative. The spirit of scien
ce is doubt and doubt leads to impotence. We cannot be sure of anything when we have discovered that all truths are relative. We live by the spirit of agnosticism whereas for a theist or atheist the question is far more simple. Their belief is reflected back to them by the mirror of the world. But the agnostic has surpassed belief, which is why he is superior to the atheist and theist but also why he is impotent, unable to find a point of traction from which to act. This is the world we live. Those who have surpassed belief find themselves unable to act concretely in the world, that is until they discover something upon which to base their actions, a truth that is beyond dualism and the relativity that follows. This something is the truth of their feelings. This truth is the movement of life within them and it is this movement that we represent with the word 'emotion', which means 'to move'. What moves us is true, what acts is actual.

This certainty we are searching for us is the reality of our feelings: our sympathy for the land and each other, for they are the same thing. This is the meaning of the medieval romance, 'Parsifal'. It is Parsifal's ingenuousness, more than aught else, that enables him to find the magical castle of the Grail. He gains entry and meets the ailing king and remembering the words of his mother that it is better to be silent and polite than risk offense he keeps his thoughts to himself. This reticence means that Parsifal fails the test and the castle vanishes, leaving Parsifal alone in the forest. Years later he finds the castle once more and this time he knows what to do, having learnt from his error. When presented to the obviously incapacitated King he asks the question that he did not utter last time out of a fear of appearing impolite – 'what ails thee?' This act of natural sympathy is the magic act that reveals the grail, that which will heal the land
. In the presence of the shimmering grail Parsifal learns that the king has a wound to his upper thigh that won't heal. This wound, he learns, was caused by the spear of Longinus – the spear that pierced Christ on the cross. The natural sexual and creative energy of the king is unable to express itself in the context of Christianity's exclusively fraternal love. Without the fructifying force of embodied desire, or eros, the King and the land cannot heal. The wasteland, the King explains, exists because he and the land are one. Until the King is healed the land cannot recover.


The land is sick because we are sick and we must heal ourselves to heal the land. This healing is the reconnection of psychic being to physical being, of agape to eros. The land, as the aboriginal man says, is not mine – the land is me. The land is the outer you, just as you are the land interiorised. To reconnect with the body is to reconnect with the land that this body also is. Likewise to spend time in wild nature is to bring the senses alive again, is to feel a part, not apart. We are alienated from each other only in so much as we are already alienated from ourselves. Social alienation is only ever a secondary phenomenon. The primary rift is within, the mind divorced from the body - a disembodied intellect.

In order to heal the schism within we need to see it mirrored without. This is how consciousness operates – it projects unassimilated psychic contents so that these contents can be integrated within the self. In other words we project what is not
yet integrated within us outwards so that we may become conscious of it. What it is, chiefly, that we reject in ourselves and project outwards is 'the bad guy'.

Whether its the feud with a neighbour or a war between countries we are talking of the same psychological root cause – the bad guy is the other guy, the other country, never us, because we know that we are good. But we ain't good, as Tony Montana tells us, we are just hiding, we are just lying, we are just scared. We need the bad guy because he represents that part of us we deny, that part that would follow our desires unflinchingly, that would refuse to repress these desires in the name of being 'good', for this idea of 'good' is only ever the morality of the slave. As Nietzsche showed, morality is the ruse that the slave uses to elevate his slavery into a virtue – it is how the weak conquer the strong. But it isn't god we are obeying here, it is the law, it is the social instruction manual, it is the world-as-ready-made for you to fit into whether you like it or not. This morality is the conversion of cowardice into a spiritual ideal. And it leads to resentment and hate and war.

God doesn't want obedience, he wants disobedience. God wants us to disobey him, to disobey all rules if our desire is of such pure intensity that we are compelled from within to do so. There is the idea of god which is religion, and there is the experience of god which is ecstasy. One can know an awful lot about religion without ever having experienced god directly as it were, without having lived god. Words are crude hieroglyphs compared to the meaning implicit in intensely lived experience and when these 'subjective' experiences are deemed inadmissible in the court of heavenly justice we find that the word we elevated above experience withers and dies and no longer feeds the spirit, for the word only lives when it is fed by life, when the word is forged in the smithy of one's soul. We all know what it means to read something or hear something or say something which is vitally true – something resonates within to the pitch of that which is expressed, corroborating it, affirming it, rising up to meet it. As Blake said: 'Truth can never be told so as to be understood and not be believ'd.'
These truths make us live, they kindle the fire of spirit that is the dynamo of all life. This energy that rises up in us to meet its own truth expressed in another, this recognition eliminates all barriers as one identifies with the other.

We are in need of such truths; for want of them the land and the people perish. The christian religion is not an effective truth for it does not accomodate
eros; science is not an effective truth for it seeks only to formulate facts and laws; it cannot accommodate the individual which is, by definition, the exception to the rule. Science and religion are identical in that they elevate the disembodied word above the living world that is its source and goal. Religion denigrates the body in the name of the spirit; science vivisects it and then says it knows what it is. In both cases the living body remains terra incognita.

Science creates a universe in its own mechanistic image. The laws of physics, like the heaven of Christianity and Plato's realm of forms, are all abstractions installed prior to reality. In other words actual reality, the world of the senses, becomes something derived, something secondary. The 'real' deal is an abstract heaven or a grand unifying theory in relation to which sensuous reality is but an ephemeral representation. In any case it is clear from here how close science and Christinianity actually are: a grand unifying theory makes no sense without a mind in which it is theorized. God is implicit in science, just as doubt is implicit in religion. That this is also the case one need only look at the trial and execution of Joan of Arc, for she was condemned on the basis that she had no doubt that God communicated directly with her.

Science grows out of the doubt of religion, making of this doubt its central principle. And from here this doubt keeps on growing and becomes the existential unease that plagues modern man, that vague sense that something vitally important is

What is missing is the 'livingness' of life itself. Actual living reality has been colonised by the idea of reality. A tree becomes just a tree, one of multitudes. That no two are alike does not prevent us from perceiving them as essentially all the same, for 'essence' here means idea – an eternal static blueprint from which the ephemeral phenomenal is continually cast.

But in reality, living reality (and there is no other), existence
precedes essence. This is the existential condition. Essence here becomes something that is the fruit of existence – which is what Jesus meant when he said, 'you shall know them by their fruits'.

And these fruits, do they not contain seeds?

And do these seeds not grow into existence?

The seed is the model by which we can save the appearances
and the ideas at the same time, for as a seed contains the future tree in potential, ie as an idea, it is also an apparent entity in itself. Seeds, like spores, occupy a marginal space between the animate and inanimate....they are the portals through which the unmanifest flows into manifestation, when the conditions are suitable. As the parable of Svetaketu so elegantly relates, a giant tree is produced from the invisible essence within the infinitesimal seed, and it is this invisible essence that creates everything. In other words, the formative dimension is not elsewhere, it is everywhere; it is the subtle essence that pervades and sustains all.
The tree and the seed. Neither is superior to the other for the tree produces the seed just as the seed produces the tree. The one cannot be without the other and together they comprise the total mechanism of evolution.

The evolution of the individual is inseparable from the evolution of the Earth as a whole; they are two sides of the same coin. And this evolution has a goal, indeed evolution as a concept makes no sense unless it is a movement towards something, hence the banality of neo-Darwinism. Teilhard de Chardin, like Henri Bergson before him, explained that whilst evolution has no explicit goal or teleology it demonstrates an implicit teleology that is facilitated through a movement towards greater degrees of complexity and consciousness, greater degrees of freedom. Matter aspires to its spiritual source, unfolding towards this source over the course of time. The reason why modern science has had such a difficult time grasping this is that it has forgotten that evolution is always twinned with involution. There can be no evolution - ie an 'unfolding' - unless something has already been enfolded or 'involved'. A seed contains (involves) the whole tree, it unfolds (evolves) into the mature giant that eventually involves itself in the infinitesimal seed once more. To enlarge the analogy we can see how heaven - which is that interior dimension of being which we call imagination - involves itself, through man, such that these imaginative 'seeds' eventually become manifest, evolving into physical reality. Imagination, therefore, is the motor of evolution; it is the receiver of inspiration, and it is the means by which this inspiration becomes expressed or given form.
In other words we dream into being. This is why the aboriginal Australians refer to a 'Dreamtime', a causal plane that is coextensive with physical reality. It is as if there is an invisible plastic template underlying and informing material reality, and this is the old idea of the astral plane. It is also the new idea of the morphogenetic field, an idea that seems to borne out by that 'strange' fact that once a novel chemical reaction has been achieved it becomes immediately easier for others, anywhere in the world, to now achieve that particular if the molecules suddenly became less recalcitrant, as if matter itself (or something underlying it) has memory, and that this memory is global - holographically stored.

When something is achieved for the first time it becomes a possibility for everyone,
a possibility that did not exist before. This is the meaning of the last two lines, spoken from the cross, in Nikos Kazantzakis' The Last Temptation of Christ:

“He uttered the triumphal cry: 'IT IS ACCOMPLISHED!
And it was as though he had said:
'Everything has begun.'”

Jesus, the man and the created god, together, achieve something that had not been seen before, created before, and this accomplishment ushers in a new aeon, which is to say a new
heaven. The vengeful Yahweh becomes humanised through the sacrifice of the god-man. Carl Jung touches deeply on this in Answer to Job. Job is an old testament story and of course the god here is the vengeful Yahweh, not the god-man Christ. God is persuaded – by the Devil of course – to test Job's loyalty and faith by taking all away from his favoured son. Job loses his wife, his children, house and wealth but he remains faithful, he accepts that the ways of God are beyond his ken and trusts that there must be a just reason for his trials – he trusts in God's goodness. That there isn't really a just reason, that it was a suspicious and prideful act on the part of God to test the innocent Job results in a precedent, a new development which will come to its completion in the figure of Jesus, namely, that in the case of Job, man is superior to god in some incontrovertible way. When man becomes superior to the gods, the gods must evolve, indeed this is how the gods evolve, and what we are living now is another such evolution. Just as Yahweh became insufficient in the face of Job, so too Christ has become insufficient in the face of an imperilled biosphere. Christ was not a replacement for Yahweh, he was an evolution of Yahweh; Christ came not to break the old law, but to complete it. Likewise this new heavenly evolution is not about replacing Christ, rather something new is being born which will complete that which was begun with the life and myth of Jesus. In other words the figure of Jesus finished one development and began another - that of the holy ghost.

Christ represents a radical freedom which contradicts the logic of empire. The holy ghost, the paraclete, the homoplasmate (to use PKD's neologism)....the direct guidance of the holy spirit logically trumps any external authority. Only the absolute truth of this can explain the deaths of the martyrs. 


Are we today seeing a new version of this martyrdom?
Can we see the accelerating extinction of species as a martyrdom on the part of the biosphere?
Hasn't a beached whale ever seemed to you to be an example of exactly that?
And just as the Christian martyrs' superhuman sacrifice eventually helped convince the people of Rome of the higher truth of the Christian ethos, so too with our fellow sentient beings and the higher truth their sacrifice attests to.

Christ revealed the divinity of man, now the Christian revelation is spreading beyond the human, extending throughout creation: nature as the 'symbol of spirit', the living symbol.

In a world where nature can be declared illegal, where systematic murder is the norm, where the destruction of the life of the Earth seems to be the such a world the 'bad guy', the 'enemy of civilisation', must logically be the 'good guy'. And what is the Devil, really? From whence does he come? Isn't it true that he is (on one level at least) the demonisation of Pan? The Devil is actually a representative deity of the living earth.

No comments:

Post a Comment