So by problem, I also mean danger, because we tend to underestimate this issue, and overestimate our capacity or ability in understanding it. This is about mediums, guides, gurus or generally people who say they’ve received ‘word’ or inspiration from some spiritual source – even those who share your beliefs. Many people seek direction this way, from books written by people who’ve had some dramatic spiritual event to guide their lives and provide some help to other people seeking similar direction. In a general sense though, Spiritism, according to one of its chief proponents ‘Allan Kardec’, is “a philosophical doctrine with religious effects. It has its fundamental basis, like any other religion, God, the soul and a future life. But it is not like most established religions as it does not have dogmas, rituals, or temples, and among its followers, nobody takes or receives the title of priest or high-priest.” Now, if you believe in the spiritual realm (as I do), this can become a tricky topic if you’re not looking to offend anyone because it involves people’s beliefs, but I think people should allow their beliefs to be shaken a bit from time to time, to see how deep their roots really are, and to test the strength of their particular belief system. So without complicating things too much, here’s the problem: Trust. If you’ve read a book or heard someone speak about spiritual guidance, whether from a psychic medium, an Imam, a pastor, or simply a friend offering some help via (deeper) self-help books, then the issue will come up; how do you trust the source of the guidance offered. Recently a friend offered/suggested a book written by a woman who wrote because she claimed she was inspired by “a voice”, saying it was like she wasn’t writing the book at all, but rather simply writing whatever the voice told her to write. Later, she claimed (believed) that the voice belonged to Jesus. The problem is that some of what she wrote (the voice said) was simply not Biblical. This is a problem, not just for me (a Christian) but for anyone interested. This brand of Spiritism I find to be common among New Age Religions, along the lines of Eckhart Tolle and even those behind the fairly recent book ‘The Secret’. Another perspective is the all roads lead to Rome idea, ie. the all-encompassing route of embracing all religions and beliefs as being essentially the same thing – all religions lead to God, they’re just different strokes for different folks (via-a-vis pluralism). But that’s an overlapping issue. Spiritism is a bit more specified and direct. Getting back to the book in question; How do we know that the author of the book (A course in Miracles by Helen Schucman, 1948-2013) is on the right path? For a Christian this is simpler because whatever disagrees with the Bible, is false, since the Bible is Truth, the Word of God being the Way, the Truth and the Life… so anything inconsistent with it, is therefore NOT the truth. I'm aware that to some this seems a bit narrow-minded, but you wouldn't call a passenger narrow-minded for insisting that only a qualified pilot should fly the plane. And that's essentially what this is about, qualifying forms of Spiritism. But what about non-Christians? Specifically Non-Christians who also happen to believe in some form of Spirituality and seek guidance through similar books, or a spiritual realm, the afterlife, ancestors, spirit-guides, a higher consciousness, self-help meditation etc.? How would you trust the word of a psychic? [Side note - This by the way is also one of the reasons why I am not a Muslim. I believe Muhammad had a profound spiritual experience in that cave, but how do I trust one man’s word, a man who himself according to tradition, was unsure about the source of the revelation upon receiving it?] People like to compare the Quran to the Bible, but that’s not accurate. It would be more apt to compare the Quran (1 book comprising the teachings/insights of 1 man, Muhammad) to other books/writings other men, like the Books of Isaiah or Jeremiah, or the Epistles of Apostle Paul (his writings contained within the Bible). This comparison would be more reasonable. This leads to why the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well as the New Testament Gospels and Epistles etc, are joined and included into a singular collection: the Bible. Viewed individually, they can all be bracketed as spiritual books and a form of ‘Spiritism’, the 66 books in the Bible, after generations of deep scrutiny (written over a period of 1500 yrs) are found to be consistent with one another in thought, content and purpose. It simply means it carries divine credentials like no other book - hence it being the most attacked book in human history. But for Non-Christians, I’m curios to learn; what are your criteria for discerning spiritual integrity? If we all believe that there is a spiritual realm, and if that spiritual realm resembles in some small way, the essential dynamics of this world, in terms of the ‘invisible’ qualities like intellect, morality, consciousness etc. – and if we assume that passed souls (ancestors) are now a part of this metaphysical/spiritual realm… then its logical to assume that since good and evil are evident in this natural world, then it's wihtin the spiritual world as well. In fact, it would be quite presumptuous, or even naive to think good and evil are not prevalent in the spiritual realm. This is especially true if you acknowledge that these elements, the natural world and the spiritual, interact with one another. Then from there, that people in this life will pass on to the next life in some form or other. Are we willing to gamble and assume that good and evil do not exist in the spiritual realm? And with that knowledge, when one attempts to interact with the spiritual, how do you then discern if whatever you’re interacting with, is good or evil? The truth is divisive, simply because it is exclusive – there is one narrow way, the right way… and many people find themselves on the wrong side or outside of it, this is why doing the good or the right thing, is often so difficult. For this reason it can be said that truth is sometimes offensive because, by its nature, it says that certain positions are wrong/false. Hence, (capital T) Truth excludes some people, and can be offensive. So, taking up the position of Truth may also at times come across as arrogant, with further potential for division. Having faced my own crisis of faith and been in a position of deep doubt, I can at least attest to it not being a very good place to be; but still, I had to go even deeper to a place where I was willing to accept and deal with the consequences if I found there to be an error in my beliefs. It was a commitment to put the truth to the test, or whatever test I could come up with, and then to be willing to deal with those consequences, whatever it was, whether I liked the answers I found or not. [This is also why New Age pluralism is so popular, because then there is no wrong answer, so it fits many people's desires - to each is his own, or simply another branch of relativism]. All this is naturally related to the quandary: 'Is there a God? and if there is, then who is he and how do we get to know him/it... and did this creator reveal himself to the human race in some way?' So often in this world, which we’ve made so very complicated, we seek guidance and sometimes that ‘guidance’ comes in forms that seem welcoming at first. However, scratch at the surface and it may reveal some inconveniences that many are simply not willing to confront. To use a common saying which also happens to be from the Bible, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matt 7:13) I understand the desire for spiritual guidance, but what are our criteria for deciphering this thing (spirituality) which by its very nature is alien to us? It is something we are unqualified to deal with, hence our methods for interacting with it cannot come from us. So, do we not need some sort of barometer to judge all spiritual matters… if not, then what? We are quick though to create our own way when wading into spiritual waters, all to fit our own spiritual desires and perspectives. How do you discern or judge Spiritism? My advice is to earnestly seek the Truth . . . As to "what is truth?" as a friend asked me recently, well that's firmly entering epistemology. But since it is such a tricky subject to define, perhaps the best starting point is to clarify what it is NOT. And its at this foundation where we find the issue of relativism and absolutism. Is Truth Absolute/fixed/objective, or is it relative? "What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are..." But, if "truths are illusions" then nothing is absolute, then it means that that claim is self-defeating... because then nothing is certain/the truth/to be trusted, including that very sentence "truths are illusions". You see if Nietzsche's claim is true (which by the way, would make it absolute) then by his own claim everything he said is an illusion, and why bother listening to/reading it in the first place. The following quote though explains it better IMO: "The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do, is follow his advice." Some handy links:
"What is Truth? | Explain Truth | Define Truth" - carm.org "What is Truth?" - Paul Pardi article on philosophynews.com
0 Comments
Dragons don’t exist, this we know. They definitely never existed at any time… this we assume to know or have greatly accepted as fact, relegating their status to myth and legend. But why? Why don’t they exist, or why haven't they "ever existed" in the ancient past? How do we know this for sure, and how was this ‘fact’ established? And so, let’s calmly question what we’ve been told, and what we’ve assumed, to prod the foundations of our knowledge, kick the tires of history, let out some of the puffed up contemporary fantastical air, and see if the vehicle of our Dragon lore is roadworthy, testing to see how far we can take it. A good practice is to be willing to entertain an idea to test its integrity. So lets entertain away. How we phrase the question is important though: Was there a time when Dragon’s existed? Or more precisely, could a Dragon-like creature have existed? I think to the latter question, the answer is a resounding YES. One need only look to the creatures on earth right now to surmise that history could well have seen something akin to what we’ve conceptualized the archetype dragon to be, and that it was perhaps these kind of creatures that inspired the early tales. And that’s the issue here. The main doubt about this animal is in people’s idea of it as this great fire spewing, scaled and winged monster rising from the depths of hell, perhaps the product of some wild imaginative liberty. From an objective view, it certainly seems to be the collective imaginative galvanization of our greatest fears. Let’s just say off the bat, or firmly assume, that Dragons are a thing of myth and legend - what we understand those two words to mean, and… They DEFINITELY NEVER EXISTED, at least not in the way fantasy and media portray it. – Let this be our starting point. And so, the arguments against its existence follows:
The Greek origin – ‘the one that watches’ Where does our knowledge of Dragons come from and what influenced or inspired the vivid modern day image? What other so-called mythological creatures are there that were also a result of ancient cultures – but that are shared as vividly throughout the ancient world as widely as the dragon? Pegasus, mermaids, centaurs, … unicorns* – (*likely inspired by the rare Indian rhino... uni-single horn). Are these creatures exclusive to one ancient culture, or do they feature in a few? Mostly, one finds they are isolated to specific cultures or myths. But of all these creatures though, the dragon seems the likeliest to have potentially existed, based on what we know. Refuting the claims against the existence of Dragons. No Dragon fossils – Well, let’s remind ourselves that fossils are very rare and assume that if Dragons did exist, there weren’t that many of them around. Due to the media, we’ve taken fossils for granted. They are hard to come by, and the few we have are largely fragmented – that is to say we only have some remains of certain animals, in most cases only a small fraction of the animal’s remains, like a femur bone, some ribs, or the pelvic bones – whichever bones are the largest and usually take the most time to decay. I think it’s fair to say that there are more animals extinct than those we have currently living on earth. Put a different way: there is a large amount of animal species that DID exist, that we know nothing about, I mean, if it weren’t for the fossils, we wouldn’t have known that such creatures ever walked the earth (apart from potential ancient literature and historical accounts attesting to such unfamiliar creatures). Now, consider the fossils we DO have and the ones that resemble the Dragon in appearance; the T-Rex, the Dracorex, Velosiraptor etc… And ask yourself, ‘how accurate are our replicas or fleshed out renderings of these animals?’ With only a skeleton to work with, there is a decent margin of error, call it an 'error factor'. Now, I’m not saying the artists and paleontologists are incorrect, but after the re-imagining of sinew and muscle tissue around the skeleton, the cartilage and skin/fur - it does leave the window ajar as to the amount of estimation that must go into these museum displays. (One display in a museum in America, is based on only 10% of the animal’s remains! In these instances, as well as the Chimera fossils, the error factor is compounded). Added to that is the varying interpretations of data found. Flight – Could a creature, let’s (conservatively) say 10m high, actually fly? Applying physics, is it possible for a scaly serpent with wings to take flight? Let’s also clarify something here; not all Dragon representations have wings. The Biblical description (Job) did NOT include wings, however, later in Revelation when Satan is referenced as a Dragon, that’s a different story, because we know Lucifer was an Archangel, like Michael and Gabriel, and in other descriptions of Lucifer (before he was cast out of heaven), he did have wings… so the concept of the Dragon emerged from the amalgamation of the two images. However, the symbolic imagery from the John's controversial vision in the Book of Revelation (often confusing and difficult to interpret literal from figurative) also states that the woman the Dragon pursues, was given wings of an eagle to evade him, implying that the dragon (Lucifer) could NOT fly. But that aside, for many considering this debate, removing the wings from the equation makes the Dragon's potential existence not so much a debate, as a probability – big dinosaur-type lizard creatures did exist, that much we know is true… it’s the fire and wings that people have always found to be a bridge too far. But let's realistically consider the permutations of wings:
Interesting facts (loosely related) - We must also remind ourselves, as mentioned, serpents’ bodies do expand when they eat (including unhinging their jaws to devour their prey and an expandable spine). Also fully grown Nile Crocodiles can reach a top speed of around 35km/h, which is roughly 2min per kilometer, about on par with Olympic athletes (800m – 1min45sec) and this for an animal weighing in at about 500kg. This is only to lend some context to a would-be Dragon’s agility and maneuverability, Still on the possibility of flight – continuing on from flexible and ‘expanding’ skeletons, we turn to bone density, although now we are stretching our hypothesis a tad… so let’s return to the land of the living and remind ourselves that there are snakes that glide too, much like the Draco Lizard some breeds can leap from tree-to-tree, flattening their bodies, and then there’s the water snake, which (as its name indicates) can glide on the surface of water. So the ergonomics for a dragon to realistically attain flight (or at least gliding), is very much achievable. ‘Breathing’ Fire Why would such an animal have this ‘feature’? Presumably it would be a defense mechanism, but against what exactly? Are there any living animals that display this feature, or features similar to, or shall we say as 'extravagant' as this? In the film ‘Reign of Fire (2002)’ it featured dragons that had two glandular chambers in opposing sides of its mouth, each chamber containing a chemical that when ejected they'd combined to form a combustible mixture. This ‘mechanism’ was inspired by the Bombardier beetle. Furthermore, in the animal kingdom we have electric Eels (another kind of serpent), and then there's Fireflies – the ‘glowing’ feature is for attracting mates or prey. I’ll leave the fire-breathing summation up to you, but the above is a just a logical idea of how the ‘fire-breathing’ element/mechanism can be explained. There are historical sources which claim the dragon's main 'killing' weapon was its tail - as a whip, or coiling around its victim, and that it was without poison. So it must also be added that the fire element was more of a 'deterrent' and intimidating factor... Why would they have died out? If historical accounts surrounding dragons are to be believed (and we have no evidence on why they should not), then human intervention played a huge role. Men striving to tame the fearsome animal and what happens when an animal is hunted; you find that the size of the animal diminishes over time as they’re prevented from growing to maturity - killed before they reach full strength. Look at the early fossils of so-called prehistoric crocodile’s, or the large extinct Dire wolf losing out to the more nimble Grey wolf (although external factors played a role too). Historical accounts are consistent with this ‘shrinking’. The ancient accounts paint a picture of a large fearsome creature, whilst later accounts such as those of Herodotus (the Greek historian, ca. 460 B.C.) and Josephus (the Roman historian writing in the 1st century AD - 2:10:2:245-246), speak of ‘flying serpents’ - the latter's case 'the Ibis bird was used to repel the flying serpents. Another theory claims that the latter two historians were likely referring to surviving Pterosaurs. Either way the biggest influencing factor, as is the trend with rare species of animals, was mankind. Are Dragon's Dinosaurs... but then are we saying man encountered dinosaurs? The first point, about fossils resembling dragon's - meaning great Lizard - seems to backup up the final point, that ancient civilizations were inspired by such finds... But can we make this blanket assertion for all ancient cultures? That they all independently conceptualized this similar terror? In this writer's opinion, we cannot. Especially not in light of bona fide historical accounts... the reason why this fossil theory is so relied upon, is because the prevailing scientific hypothesis states that dinosaurs died out some 70 million years ago, but early human history seems to contradict this. Never mind that they've discovered soft tissue in Dinosaur bones (that scientists have failed to explain adequately - as to how could soft tissue can withstand millions of years of decay), and there are cases of rock art (Peru) that suggest man walked with dinosaurs (in addition to Hebrew literature, which is what the Bible is. Whilst archeologists investigating in Denmark have found that Beowulf, Europe's earliest literature, is based on fact, real clans, places and people... the difficult part to digest is Dragons and giants... or if the tale is real, did Beowulf then perhaps fight one of the last remaining dinosaurs of that region?) This issue is simply about reconciling whether or not dinosaurs lived in the same time as man, and there are big enough cracks in the geologic/prehistoric timetable theory to peer into, throwing ample reasonable doubt into the equation. This though is another exciting rabbit hole. But back on track; dragons are simply a form of ancient lizard/serpent , and there are plenty of those species still in existence. As mentioned, the alligator/crocodile, the monitor lizard, Komodo Dragon etc. are recognized for being ancient creatures. And then we arrive at the one which bears the most striking resemblance to contemporary dragon renderings: The Smaug Giganteus, aka ‘Sungazer’ – endemic to South Africa. “Sungazers are heavily armoured lizards hence one of their common names, the Girdled Lizard. This is derived from the bony scales along their body. Another name for them ‘Ouvolk’ is from Afrikaans and roughly translates into “Old Folk”, supposedly referring to its tendency of sitting at the entrance of the burrow facing the sun for many hours on end. Universally, the most commonly used name, Sungazer is also derived from this posturing. “These colonial, ovoviviparous lizards reproduce every two to three years, and only produce one or two offspring per breeding cycle.” (Bill Branch. 1998. Field Guide to Snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa, p. 189) I highlighted the line above because it’s consistent with the earliest meanings of the word dragon and also how they're portrayed; Word: Dragon - Middle English < Old French < Latin dracōn- (stem of dracō) < Greek drákōn kind of serpent, probably orig. epithet, the (sharp-) sighted one, akin to dérkesthai to look … and more remotely “to watch” and “to flash.” Name: Drakon (Δράκων)) - Greek name meaning "dragon." In Greek mythology - Drakon Ismenios was a gigantic serpent which guarded the sacred spring of Ismenos near Thebes; the Drakon Kholkikos was the guardian of the golden fleece… “St. Roma’nus delivered the city of Rouen from a dragon, named Gargouille (waterspout), which lived in the river Seine.” (bartleby.com) – gargouille… inspiration for “gargoyle”. “In reality snakes do not shut their eyes because they do not have eyelids, giving the impression they are awake all the time, and watching with a menacing unblinking stare.” – (constellationofwords.com - © Anne Wright 2008.) History On a larger worldwide scale though, in practically all ancient cultures that have some form of recorded history, there are references to dragons, or a dragon-like creatures. As noted sources of dragon's are cited in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Europe (Greek and Hebrew text). Farther east in India (via Alexander the Great and Marco Polo), as well as historian accounts of Geisner, Gould, Aldrovandus, Strabo and Megasthenes... there's Mexico (Acambaro art) then there's the ubiquitous and expansive Chinese Dragon lore, with many more accounts littering the Old world. Yes, in some of the later accounts the Dragons may differ in description, but the explanation that all these cultures and historians simply saw dinosaur fossils and interpreted them as "dragon", doesn't sync. I'm sure there are instances of this occurring, but even Marco Polo wrote of actual terrifying nocturnal serpents with wings and two legs. So, based on the evidence at hand, and knowing for a certainty that I DO NOT know everything... I will say that outside my Biblical background, the case or likelihood for the Dragon's existence, even close to the modern fantasy renditions, is actually quite good. There is of course doubt, but we cannot simply stick dogmatically to the "dragons are simply mythical creatures, of legend and nothing more". The evidence before us strongly suggests that it may be a simple case of personal preference, to look at the data with a positive or negative mindset, for or against. You decide. “There is a place in Arabia, situated very near the city of Buto, to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of the water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat” (Herodotus, 1850, pp. 75-56) Connecting some not-so-distant dots: It's interesting that the flying serpents were said to originate from Arabia – Buto is an ancient city in the Nile Delta that now lays in ruin… why is this interesting? Well if you travel a bit south on the opposite side of the Red Sea you’ll find Yemen, still advancing south, just off the horn of Africa there’s the Yemeni Island of Socotra, an alien-looking place known for its ‘Dragon Trees’ – which bleed red. "That the Egyptians were building large, sea-going ships as early as 2000 B.C. is well known. In them they traded with Crete and Phoenicia … and with western Mediterranean ports. They sailed up and down the Red Sea, exploring Sinai and Yemen; visited Socotra, where grew the dragon-blood tree; went far south along the African shore; searched the Arabian coast, gathering frankincense (said to be guarded in its growth by small winged serpents); and made voyages back and forth between the Red Sea and the ports of Babylonia and Elam on the Persian Gulf” And then the sober writings of St. John of Damascus... ‘I am not telling you, after all, that there are no dragons; dragons exist but they are serpents [reptiles] borne of other serpents. When just born and young, they are small; but when they grow up and mature, they become big and fat so that they exceed the other serpents in length and size. It is said they grow up more than thirty cubits [14 metres, 45 feet]; as for their thickness, they become as thick as a huge log.’ There are claims by skeptics that the Roman Regulus was simply making this dragon story up, to lend an alibi for his failure at Carthage (it is said that dragons were not an uncommon scapegoat for Roman generals' who suffered defeats in battle,though I've yet to discover an actual account outside of Regulus), this despite Roman Historian Livy supporting the Cassius Dio account - so whatever doubts there are, the fact is the story became and is a part of official recorded Roman history. If the story was developed as a ruse, then another explanation needs to be sought for what they used as the dragon hide which was sent to the Senate and reportedly displayed in Rome for a hundred years. Alternative explanations theorize the likelihood that Regulus and co. encountered a giant Python. the problem with that theory is that the only snake on the continent fitting that description resides in Sub-Saharan Africa, the African Rock Python, making it improbable. ... Some more thought provoking images: A Final word: Dracorex A fossilized skull of a dinosaur that’s officially called “Dracorex Hogwartsia”. Again, the official word is that the fossil probably does NOT belong to the serpentine genus/family. Here’s what the paleontologists say: “probably a new genus or subfamily of Pachycephalosaurus. Most pachycephalosaurs are known for their dome-shaped skulls; however, our dinosaur had a flat skull covered in small bony warts. It is the first of its kind found in North America.” Since there’s only a skull, its hard to make conclusive summations on the species, already designated by the experts as probably a new genus... and one of a kind. The fossil was donated to a children’s Museum in America. And as Dr. Paul Saulsbury (one of the paleontologists credited with the find) noted at the Dracorex skull’s museum unveiling - ‘One boy who was just beaming came up to Brian, Steve, and me. "I just knew there were dragons!" he said.’ * [Image and extract sources: http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/discovering-new-dinosaur-species-dracorex-hogwartsia, jpm-thnktnk.blogspot.com, flickr.com, http://www.sacred-texts.com/etc/ddl/ddl04.htm, earth66.com. Additional sources: http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/, http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/b/beowulf/character-analysis/beowulf, http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/dragons-animals-%E2%80%A6-not-apparitions/]
Artist Feature: Saul Leiter (1923-2013) is one of the foremost photographers in the history of the medium, described as an iconoclast, he came to prominence in the early 50's through his use of color, showing that Black and white photography was not a sacred thing. - Usually I include a brief summary of the artist, their biography etc. but in light of Leiter's quote from an interview shortly before he died (in 2013), I'll keep the words to a minimum, and let the photos, his work, speak for itself... from me, it must be said though, it's hard to find a photo that I don't like.
"You’re going to write about my work? Really, and I mean this, the less said the better."
“LEITER WAS PERHAPS THE MOST INTERESTING OF THE FIFTIES COLOR PHOTOGRAPHERS in his use of form…. The overriding emotion in his work is a stillness, tenderness, and grace that is at odds with the mad rush of New York street life.”
—The New Yorker “I LIKE IT WHEN ONE IS NOT CERTAIN WHAT ONE SEES.”
The TRAILER to the documentary film on Saul Leiter "IN NO GREAT HURRY: 13 lessons in life with Saul Leiter" (2012) :
After his death in November of 2013, the Guardian Newspaper described him as "one of the quiet men of American photography. A pioneer of colour... relatively unsung until he was rediscovered by curators and critics in his early 80s".
"I much prefer to drink coffee, listen to music and to paint when I feel like it."
"A window covered with raindrops interests me more than a photograph of a famous person." "Israel has no better friends throughout the world." As I wrote this article, news came in of 2 Palestinian teenagers shot by Israeli IDF soldiers. From what I gathered, two teenage Arabs wielding knives and clubs broke into a settlement home in Eli and started beating and eventually stabbed an Israeli man in his house. The man fought back, protecting his wife and children and managed to get them out the house. The family called emergency services and when the soldiers arrived the two teenagers, who’d been hiding, then attacked the soldiers. – On first reading I must question why these two weren’t arrested by police, as happens in regular communities? it seems odd (to outsiders) with the use of excessive force… But on the other hand; what were the teenagers doing there (apart from attacking people)? What did they hope to achieve? Also, what did they think would happen after attacking soldiers? Then there's the imbalance: guns and bullets versus bats and knives… though in 2011 there was similar story when two Arab teenagers (similarly armed) broke into a house (in Samaria), murdering an entire family. As a rule though, tensions are always high. Since the beginning, Israeli soldiers have taken the stance of no compromise. But we still live with the fact that 2 more teenagers are dead. The result of stories like the one above, is that Israel is often painted as the bad guys, and they’re not innocent, so why is it that Christianity always takes the side of the Israelis, even when the nation’s actions are hard to comprehend, let alone explain reasonably? We all know the story that Israel is God’s chosen people, but in a world (modern society) increasingly dismissing God and the Bible (or Torah) as irrelevant, can the “chosen people” still be justified? Does that stance even apply anymore? History [Biblical] The Bible contains some of the oldest historical records known to man, much older than the Qur'an. Foundations of Israeli culture (founded in the wisdom of the law of Moses) is divinely inspired and linked/integral to the religious beliefs of over half the world’s population (55% in 2010), and that’s only counting the big ones (Christianity – a third of the world’s population, Islam – quarter, and then the much smaller Judaism)… and that 'religious' population is increasing fast. In other words, Israel is the most devout state in exercising God’s early inspired practices, due to the fact that Israel as a nation has a direct covenant with God (Deut 5:2). “Although other ancient communities saw a divine presence in history, this was taken up in its most consequent fashion within the ancient Israelite community and has remained, through many developments, the focus of its descendants' religious affirmations” --- [http://history-world.org/history_of_judaism.htm] God's favourite, or chosen nation; what does that mean? Firstly; what kind of God has “chosen people”, i.e. favourites, what about the rest of us unlucky enough to be born in another country… and furthermore, regarding said favourites, why Israel? No one knows why God chose Israel because no one knows the mind of God. The second part though is quite interesting, looking at the nation itself – if one were to petition the world, Israel would definitely not be the most popular country insofar as topics of human rights and politics are concerned. In fact many would see the nation as (and they've been labelled as such) supremacists. Seeing themselves (in some ways) as higher than the rest of the world, kind of like the way other school kids look at the teacher’s pet. Moreover, what does it mean for the rest of the world knowing that God has chosen one nation? At a glance, in terms of Biblical practice/law etc… Israel has drifted far from God. It’s a tough sell; how does one reconcile “Love thy neighbour” with protecting oneself from terrorism and being the only tiny Jewish State in a hostile (Anti-Semitic) Arab world (with leaders openly proclaiming their will for Israel's destruction)? But then again, God has this habit or pattern of redemption… the Bible is full of it, it’s literally the central message of the Bible: Salvation, redemption of humanity through his son Jesus Christ (a Jew). And if we look throughout history, Israel has constantly failed God, failed to obey him. Yet the message is that despite (our) failings, God still loves us. So in reality, as Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone… no one is without sin, so no one can really judge. Israel is an allegory for all of us. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:8 I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it I hate it ……………………………… It’s a trap an illusion It taunts me clutches me like quicksand, or what we imagine quicksand to be, the fictional kind. It’s a trick, a confidence trick, a lie that changes every so often, like you’re figuring out the path and then suddenly the environment changes up on you, suddenly your senses are failing you, deceiving, the world is tapping incessantly on the dome of your mind, And then they say “no, that’s normal, writers are supposed to feel like that, writers are supposed to be a little MAD, a little cu coo.” And that’s like saying “yes, you’re meant to drown, that’s kind of your job, to sink in the sand, be covered, embrace the submergence, You chose this didn’t you?” But then they say we don’t get to choose, “we are chosen” Writing is a gift, and the writer is merely the recipient, fulfilling his role, obligated to use that gift, obligated to sink. To be taunted by confidence one moment And then the rug pulled out the next, as we slip into self doubt ... again Sooo, that’s the idea then, to just walk this imaginary line traced along the edge of an imaginary cliff; confidence on one side, and doubt down below on the other. With sympathizers isolated in their own world, offering small consolation, all they can do really, a simple frown, a shrug, palms up… “what can you do?” Maybe you can try to not be a writer, maybe that will solve it? Maybe I could try that, try, try to not be it, try and pretend for a while, being stuck somewhere else. I hate it I hate it because this is simultaneously exactly where I’m meant to be and it is exactly… nowhere. Forever nowhere Because the truth is, if writer’s are the observer’s of the world, and this world isn’t or wasn’t good enough so we decided to make their own worlds, to invent or reinvent stories to explore deeper meanings of pure truths that are hard to comprehend on just the physical plain, then what does that mean? The reality is that if we’re in this world just observing then we’re not technically part of it, we’re just stuck here, dreaming of some other places. There we are Back on the edge of the cliff again Confidence in the imaginary Doubt in reality Pitiful. I hate it So that’s it then, to struggle in quicksand and fight your way out… some of us never do Some of us will always be trapped … I don’t like it. There are only 26 letters, more in other languages, but 26 in this one. That's it. we are not reinventing the language, all stories have been told, we only look for ways to tell the same tales in a different way. Every new generation comes along discovering life and the world anew, because they’ve never seen it before, or heard the stories before, so those same old stories get told, get read, get heard and live again in the minds of a new crowd. That’s the cycle. That’s the trap, the confinement of letters and words, because words are what we have, but they are not enough, even though they have immense power, to inspire, create, reconcile, heal, secure and define... Scribbling to paint some vague picture, just an image of what is actually going on here. So we’re trapped, in between letters and words, in between realities… and the imaginary. I’m not stuck. I just haven’t moved much, not in this world anyway. I don’t like it, because those who I want to see me, do not. And what started as a lament on the war with words, a war with time and being, and seeing and feeling, is all of a sudden put in its place... given new context and meaning the root of this struggle... - “We have so many different and conflicting selves within us that you never know which one will prevail, even when we don’t want certain of them to win" "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us..." The original Greek for "Word" used in John 1, is Logos... LOGOS (noun) the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order, identified in the Gospel of John with the second person of the Trinity incarnate in Jesus Christ. This methodology then proceeds ‘downward’ to the Incarnation, to the event in which the Word or Logos became man in Jesus Christ. (noun) a symbol or other design adopted by an organization to identify its products, uniform, vehicles, etc.. the Olympic logo was emblazoned across their jackets synonyms: emblem, trademark, brand, device, figure, symbol, design, sign, mark, insignia “We are not made for the mountains, for sunrises, or for the other beautiful attractions in life - those are simply intended to be moments of inspiration. We are made for the valley and the ordinary things of life and that is where we have to prove our stamina and strength.” Photographer - artist feature. Rediscovering someone’s work who was a master of their field, Is like discovering buried treasure, only for me to veil it again for the next person. Ernst Haas’ work can be appreciated by anyone, but it is even more poignant when viewed in context as he was one of the chief pioneers in using colour… it’s then that you truly grasp why he’s one of the most celebrated and influential photographers of the 20th century.
"Photography is a bridge between science and art. "... in visions we are alone, in taste we can be together. The quest to understand, or to wander, or do both... *** I close my eyes and cover my face because it feels like I’m clutching at straws, and because I know I’m not the only one banging my head at this same old proverbial door. If one could see my mind’s eye, I assume, it would look like my physical eyes, tired and reddened from too many late night hours. Hitherto, art and “inspiration” can often be described as (and forever it will be) … a poisoned chalice to my grimacing lips. Sweet and richly rewarding, but also tempting and all consuming, like a labyrinth, luring you in, only to hold you there in a deluge of sometimes false insight and glimmers of hopes and truths that also sometimes disappear just as quickly as you reach out to grasp them. The realms behind - Could it be that art is something apart from us… that we remain the same simple beings, but that some of us are gifted with the ability to tap into this realm…? That the talents we possess are there to enable us to peel back our plain reality and existence to reveal what lies beyond it. And that the subject of this revelation is something apart from us, yet we are inexorably linked to it. That artists are simply some kind of strange gatekeepers to the intangible, interpreters of a realm beyond our grasp. But that all we do is the act – that Art simply is the act of revealing. I’ve asked the question before of ‘why we thank God for our own accomplishments’… well, it leads me to think of Michelangelo who said "Every block of stone has a statue inside it and it is the task of the sculptor to discover it.” Some time ago I wrote a piece entitled “The Future of Art” which included a somewhat somber but no less hopeful and objective look at the art world; what it is now, compared to what it was. It came to mind as I read a recent article by my friend David Martinez Romero (Here) in which he quotes Hegel stating that art has lost the immediacy it had in the glory days… With this we’re led to the exploration of what art actually is, and why we feel the way we feel, because it has and always will be entwined with our emotions, as much as our imagination. Now I have constantly ‘watched’ myself in the way I approach issues (not to be apologetic in my manner, but just self conscious) knowing that many or most people do not take things so seriously, but I am reassured when with my colleagues (other artists, writers) because it is our role to take these things seriously, because if we didn’t, who else would? So what is art, essentially… and why is this important? At its core, is creativity… But more than that, it is ambitious, or inspirational creativity – encompassed by a goal, a desire to get there, to achieve something, to do, to make… something that needs no other purpose, but to exist. A work of art doesn’t need to inspire the onlooker, or invoke an emotion or feeling , because the world of art exists within the abstract. To connect with something, or form something that cannot be fully defined and explored in the physical and finite world. Art exists because there exists within us the ability of abstract thought. That although we are finite beings (in one body/mind, living a mortal existence) we seem to have abilities that reach well beyond us – But for what reason, what purpose? And we might say that it is the link to the spiritual world (or a remnant, a clue to something more than this life – even if we choose to ignore it), the question alone is worth exploring… but being ready for whatever answer comes our way, this is another matter entirely, a matter which requires you to ready your heart. Mind you, to reach this place is not easy. Why do we all have different talents and abilities? That one person has the ability to perform immense and complex equations whilst another can render a detailed and immaculate sketch – it comes across as an eerie kind of randomness. Precision and abstract beauty coming from each individual, like various colours making the tapestry of our humanity… viewed from close it looks like a mess, but step back and the image begins to make a little more sense. But why does this exist? – Again the question is inspiration itself. Of course artists may explore any issue, minute or infinite, material or intangible… all for his or her own pleasure, to explore the abilities they have found within, and though they may not know or understand why they have a particular talent, they are at peace with the fact that they have it, and that it in some way defines who they are or signals their purpose in this life. I would put it to you that the creative ability we possess is merely a reflection of the same infinite ability present in our creator. He made us in his image, and just as we look around us, and the world, we see many things that apparently have little to no purpose (in our lives, other than aesthetic appeal), other than to simply exist. Mountains and embankments covered in new blossoms that on any given day can go unseen by human eyes, yet they are there, they exist, with or without our knowledge or sight. Why did God make them, why did he make us? Is it simply for his own pleasure? Is that not why we create, for own pleasure and recognition, to distinguish ourselves from others? Pleasure is present, but I am not saying that there will not be turmoil and pain within the process, that it will only be pleasurable, or that perhaps the results are not what you were looking for, or perhaps people misinterpret your work… Ask or study any great artist and I will guarantee that there was pain involved, depression, self doubt, lack of inspiration or any number of issues that come hand in hand with the process of creating something. It is usually a deluge of toil… Some struggle, in the effort to experience something great, to catch a glimpse of something Godly, but if we were only to start with God first, and move from there (from Him), from that place of rest, and then explore the labyrinthine garden we call Art. When exploring something such as creativity itself, then perhaps, is it not best to start with familiarizing ourselves with the inventor of the thing we wish to explore; in this case the Creator himself? "The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection." As we look at the world of art, some might say that we are in trouble… its as if years ago we’d entered the fantastic abstract world and started exploring, but now it feels that, much like the world itself, there’s very little that has not been seen or explored, that art (like the world) is over explored, and there’s very little mystery left. Its like we’ve somehow found the walls or the outer borders of this world as we struggle to find new mediums to explore. We cannot go sideways or forwards or back without revisiting where we were, so perhaps all that's left is to go up or down... But perhaps, if we change the way we see things, change our vantage point, we might see this world differently. It feels like many artists sense things like they’re walking through a gallery, looking around or looking out and up… but maybe we could look at things from the outside in. It may seem odd to define the art world as a confined space, as many would see it as something without limits, or that its only as limited as our minds make it to be… but my view is that art exists outside and apart from the human mind, “it” was there before us, it is beyond us… Art is beyond expressionism, or application of human imaginative capability, or “creative activity”… I would propose that it is a means to access or reach into something which is essentially greater than us all. I mean just think, Art imitates life, art cannot exist without it, and we are fearfully and wonderfully made... Our form, our appearance, our design, is a work of sublime art, hence we are to change our thinking, because we are exploring something that we ourselves are a part of, revealing and understanding our place in it... Creation! * - This writers opinion . . . |
[Banner illustration by Joel Kanar]
WRITING
|