News, Politics and Terror

It is important for people to understand that the "news" as reported in the major media organs is not a compendium of the most notable events of the day. Rather, it is an ongoing narrative based on specially selected events and happenings whose significance is that they are part of the ongoing propaganda narrative. Propaganda is seen as necessary for social cohesion, though it is not called that, by the media barons. They see themselves as being the upholders of civilization. They are in fact courtiers.

I am always amazed that people spend so much time and interest in “the news”. It is interesting, to be sure, but it bears little relation to reality and that seems very obvious to me. I’ve traveled and “hung out” in a variety of milieus and know that there are a lot of very interesting things going on and great stories out there that no one will write about because they don’t fit the current mythos. Not that there is anything really wrong with that. We need some kind of guardian class to keep our stories and myths straight. Mankind, to paraphrase T.S. Eliot, cannot bear very much reality. Having said that we should ask the guardians to a) admit that is what they do and that they are researchers into truth; and b) realize that they are taking on a public responsibility, they can dissemble to be sure, but there must be some sense of responsibility for the well-being of people in general not just the rulers.

So whatever the media is it is not s source of great truths but shows us the political reality of our time. One aspect of this reality is the need for enemies and conflict. “Terror” fits that category. The term “terror” means a very particular thing in the media that has nothing to do with its dictionary meaning. Terror is, in short, something “they” do. “They” are inhuman monsters who do things for no sane reason—they are mad-dogs and we should not even attempt to understand them; rather, they should be exterminated. While the press generally doesn’t put it that crudely, essentially that is the conclusion one has to come to after reading accounts of these fanatics who are very much a “them”. “We” never indulge in anything like that except sort-of by accident perhaps by a few over-zealous “bad apples” who will be punished at some point after everyone but the lower-class types are exonerated.

The news is deeply political and as I’ve implied deeply a part of governance and we need to keep that in mind. Those that govern, I hate to break it to you, have no need or interest in what you and I may consider truth. They have no interest in what you or I consider decency either, that is not their job. Political power is tough to come by and only the tough get to the top and there are no, I repeat, no exceptions. Pols (and I include mainstream journalists in this) will do whatever they have to do to win, to get ahead and to maintain their power because that is the milieu they live in and that is the currency of their social life. Like athletes they need to win or they are out of there. It wasn’t always quite that way and even today the whole political world is filled with elaborate politeness rituals but their bottom line is beginning to blur the old (and I believe very commendable) manners and traditions. Today, particularly with the current administration in Washington, the rules of the game of politics are a kind of hyper-Machiavellian set of rules and practices. That does not mean that the people playing that game of power are “bad”; they are like anyone else a mixture of moral qualities. They are creatures that are shaped by the game they play and it’s getting rougher as the rules are bent and laws, traditions, are thrown into the air.

I believe terror is just politics. I don’t even know who the terrorist are and I suggest there is no way of knowing for sure besides the so-called civilized countries use it all the time but call it something else. Try as I might, I see little evidence that the media story on who and what terrorism is holds much water. I’d be glad to agree with them but the evidence is not there. We simply have to understand that terror is an attitude and a tactic that is used, we can safely say, by all people who seek power. I believe there are politicians, corporate officers, fixers, bag-men, assassins, terror experts, special/black/ops personnel, religious fanatics, drug dealers, slave traders, gambler, arms dealers, addicts, diamond smugglers, industrial spies, hackers, prostitutes, gun men, thugs, pornographers, organ-dealers, flim-flam men and women all thriving in the contemporary global marketplace. At the same time there is no commonly accepted moral imperative operating in this system other than profit so it’s quite logical that “terror” would profit certain people. Therefore to understand terror or anything else in the contemporary world we need to find out who benefits (qui bono) and follow the money. Ignore the conclusions claimed by the politicians and media people unless they actually show who benefits and that they have followed the money (it would be interesting if reporters began to actually follow the principles I just mentioned because they rarely do).

Peace

I spent the past week or so preparing for and participating in the annual event of Mata Amritandamayi (Amma) here in the Washington, D.C. area (for more about her). I can't begin to do her justice in describing her or what she has done for me and many others I know.

Oh peacemaker, before trying to make peace throughout the world, first make peace within thyself.

—Hazrat Inayat Khan

We cannot "fight for peace". Fighting is what we do when we feel threatened and insecure. Are we really so threatened? I don't think most of us are. I think many of us in U.S. society are addicted to violence. We frame so much of our identity in violence and its symbols. In the past war was seen as a way not only to defend one's tribe but also to learn the manly virtues of loyalty, courage, self-sacrifice and so on. In ancient time war was also a means for material gain (pillage) and a way to enjoy certain amorous delights (rape) that was normally frowned upon in polite society. The cult of violence is very much about maleness and about domination/submission.

In this advanced post-modern world where we have removed ourselves from nature (our own and as well as the natural world) violence and sex have become very compelling and glamorous. It is so interesting. It is also very convenient to those who enrich themselves by catering to the weakness of others. It is very convenient to create a psychic space wherein it is “ok” to control the world through threats, intimidation, domination, abuse, torture, cruel slaughter of innocence and these methods seem to be preferred whether or not they, as practical techniques for domination, actually do the job.

The leadership class in the United States appears to love violence for its own sake and this is clearly not a good thing for a world in need of peace and cooperation. These people seem to think that spreading fear and dread will encourage “freedom”. I prefer the old fashioned raping and pillaging idea, at least it is honest. But before we waste energy in hating the ruling class let's take a bit of time to look around at ourselves and the culture we contribute to every day in so many ways. Look at violence in movies, music and sports. Look at our fondness for watching others be humiliated in public.

Dominance/submission is the sexual sense has become a very big deal in Western culture not only in the sexual sense but obviously in the political sense. Let me make it very clear that leaders don’t go around wearing black leather and a carrying a whip but, in America at least, the personality that is considered “strong” and a “leader” is aggressive, loud, and not necessarily very intelligent. It is interesting how scientists and scholars are very much out of fashion these days.

May people believe the urge towards dominating others through force is healthy and a sign of vigor and virtue. Certainly in societies that need that mentality to survive an argument could be made for that ethic. But we are in a very different world than our ancestors where wars and follies passed into history very quickly. The problem is not just the violence we inflict on each other, but the violence we inflict on everything we touch and nearly everything we do involves tearing resources out of the earth in ways that deeply affect the commons and the future. We no longer go quietly into history—we have grown up as species we now have ultimate power over the planet we live on and there is little evidence that our minds have grown up alongside our power.

Peace is, I think, the absence of agitation. The peaceful person possesses a certain quietness that does not signify a lack of vigor but rather watchfulness, a willingness to take in what is around and what is. The agitated person is prone to violence for nothing seems quite right—everything needs adjustment or “improvement” or, more commonly there is not enough food, status or sex so more must be gotten. To work towards peace demands a sense of inner satisfaction and completeness that does not need anything added. Truly peaceful people can be very lively and produce extraordinary even prodigious works since they don’t waste their time worrying about their own “needs” since those are already fulfilled. He or she only sees others who may be in pain or in need and seeks to aid these others in ways that are obvious, i.e. feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, hug those without love, bring enlightenment to the seekers.

When we look at an outer world dominated by the dominator model what do we do? Do we “fight” the power? My answer is both yes and no. Those of us who prefer non-violence are under a certain obligation to make non-violence “strong”, i.e., cultivate the good side of the force so that even if “violent” activity may become necessary it will exhibit itself in a playful and non-hateful manner. Evil in the world has become far too developed to be defeated by naturally peaceful people adopting anger and hatred as a motivation to fight for the earth, for the poor, for peace. We have to work much harder to develop ourselves and, as importantly, our communities (however we define them) in living a peaceful yet vigorous life so that others can see non-violence, love, gentleness, love of nature, love of our fellows as an indication of true virtue and strength.

Mysteries of the Midway

We all underestimate the confusion brought on to us by the variety of truth claims and "information" that we swim in perhaps because we getting used a certain amount of inner confusion. We like to say we live in the information age but we really live in propaganda age. I've been reading Jacques Ellul's Propaganda which was published in the U.S. in 1965 but must have been written several years earlier. Ellul showed that propaganda is not very effective if it is occasional it is effective when it works all the time and he shows that modern societies are really propaganda societies.

Some quotes:

"... a modern state even if it be liberal, democratic, and humanist, finds itself objectively and sociologically in a situation in which is must use propaganda as a means of governing. It cannot do otherwise."

"The secret of propaganda success or failure is this: Has it or has it not satisfied the unconscious need of the individual whom it is addressed?"

There are two issues here: 1) the modern state cannot survive without propaganda, or to put it another way, useful lies and deceptions intended to manipulate the public towards state control; and 2) individuals have inner needs that must be addressed by any society--in the past these needs were fulfilled through time-honored and effective (because they came about through evolution) means, i.e., spiritual, religious, mythical, and magical--since modern society depends on disrupting the natural and organic ways of life that on the surface may appear very limiting (generally what the traditional ways of life lack in "excitement" they make up in breadth of experience)--these needs must be met somehow and propaganda is the way. Ellul is very insistent that propaganda is a two-way street. A good illustration of this is in public and media reaction to 9-11 and the so called "War on Terror". Suddenly reasoned consideration of the facts even reason itself was jettisoned in favor of a fervor of hate mixed with fear mixed with patriotism, not just because so many members of the media were elated at being let out of their cages to express their longing for deeper connections and thereby serve the oligarchy with unthinking fervor but the masses of ordinary people wanted to kill, destroy, feel the power of being part of a massive powerful force that would rid the world of Evil itself. Well, if people had really sat down and analyzed the situation they would have rejected such notions even if they accepted the common run of facts as to what occurred on 9/11.

Thoughts on Spiritual Practice

In some fundamental ways we are sick due to historical forces we as individuals have no control over. We don't know how to locate ourselves healthily into larger frameworks. Those of us who seek to follow a spiritual path try many ways, we read Holy books and perform spiritual practices handed down from the ancients though these things don't quite fit us because we have so many choices. Still, those practices and philosophies are useful as guides and should be always used as reference points when feasible—but we lack the fundamental stability to really do much with these paths.

We need simple spiritual paths based on elegant fundamentals. This is why the more basic forms of Buddhism are attractive to many aware (hip) people in our culture. For me, the teachings of Eckhart Tolle are prime examples of elegant fundamental thinking because he emphasizes simplicity, i.e. “the now”. The Presence that comes from being in the now is, for our generation of humans living in the craziness of the modern world, God.

Actually the situation we face is not as simple as Tolle implies but his fundamental insight is crucial to any sort of practice, and he doesn't lay out a big agenda for us precisely because our minds would take his idea structure and run with it; he knows full well how addicted we are to “ideas”. This focus on thoughts, ideas, "solutions" fuel our tendency towards mental spinning which because we lack grounding literally in the soil (this includes place, family, community etc.) this feature is the hallmark of our era. All the classics of spirituality were written or taught in cultures that were stable, except for odd periods of instability. Family, tribe, and location were fundamental not incidental. Most people have always been raised within a common mythological framework that developed and changed very slowly gradually adapting to new situations or, when major wars and dislocations occurred there was a quick blending and period of syncretism and a new myth developed out of the old fragmented myths. Today we are in a period of time when the period of dislocation seems permanent so that no stable sustaining myth or ethical sensibility can be established everything seems temporary and in a state of flux. In the past the split between self, society and the Earth was not there so people did not have to “choose” what to do or what to believe even in times of instability. People were used to acting within a context of codes of honor. Today there are no standards that have the power to hold us and it is not our fault.

Beyond practicing a simple practice we can understand clearly and perhaps experimenting with other practices, what do we do to heal the illness? How do we heal the damage we all feel (if we are honest) inside? While practicing being Present we have to create a framework for that practice since we are usually not present. That framework is where we can perform our spiritual practice.

There is no real separation between oneself and the world whether we are speaking of people or the physical world around us or all the inner and outer worlds that we can imagine. There is no real separation but, as a practical matter of living in a time-bound existence, we make certain demarcations. Still, the basic issues of ones psychic makeup are reflected in the rest of nature and society. Thus ones relationship with spouse/partner, children/parents, friends, institutions, societies, is part of one continuum. Therefore our relationship with the world should be based on the same principles as our inner practices and vice versa.

The political “situation” is not something that is apart from us but the medium of our interchange with the world as our body is the medium of our own self-awareness. By “political” I mean the world that exists beyond ourselves and those we are intimate with (those whom we are intimate share both personal and political qualities). It includes such things as economics, business, culture, public associations of all kinds. While there are certain spiritual principles that we are discovering or seeking to discover in the internal spiritual world there are certain principles that operate in our political world and that we call “ethics”. Without an ethical structure of some kind spirituality is barren and ultimately withers and the same can be said of the opposite—both ethics and spirituality ought to be practiced together.

Intimate relations are where we confront our boundary issues. The point of intimate relations is to practice the connection between self and not self (I and Thou by Martin Buber discusses a very solid basis for ethics in seeing all relations as essentially intimate). Our intimate circles particularly sexual partners and family provide us with some of the basic grounding structures we lack that I mentioned above, i.e., connection with a place, lineage, tribe, and mythical framework, in short a sense of belongingness that is absent from our larger associations.

First Post--about This Presence

This Presence is always here. It is that part of us that is most particular and personal to each of us yet universal at the same time. It is the deepest paradox I know of and the most fertile. My own contact with the Presence occurs when I am honest and empty of stories and narratives I've chosen to follow only in the internal sense so that my perceptions become more acute and deepen as I gaze out into the world first through my own "identity" (personal history) and then into my family, community, culture and so on. Mostly though I lose focus and I am not Present and lurch from one thing to another distracted by the buzzing variety all around me.

I could find somewhere quiet and just sit but I've found that to be as noisy and full of distractions as anything else. I could just contemplate ideas but they turn into movies. The real movie is this world we live in. To be Present and fully in the now is to be in this world with all its craziness and distractions yet not loosing the thread of being.

This blog will focus on contemporary events and social/political issues in terms of the truth of the Presence (always rooted in this moment). Or, perhaps this is easier to understand, this blog focused on social/political issues from the point of view of pursuing spiritual practices that bring us to some form of Kaivalya or liberation. You may ask: "liberation from what?” In the various forms of spiritual philosophies liberation means liberation from all the illusions we live under. So, for me, the illusions we have that cloud or own being are similar to the collective illusions that cloud our view of the society we live in. My view is that just working on spiritual practices, at this point in history, is inadequate and certainly just working in the social sphere is clearly inadequate since, without spiritual practice to sharpen perception, ones actions are based on potentially dangerous ignorance.