But what is far more important to us now, and into the future, is that we remember our mother as she would have wished to be remembered as she was: fun-loving, generous, down-to-earth, entirely genuine. We both think of her every day. We speak about her and laugh together at all the memories. Put simply, she made us, and so many other people, happy. May this be the way that she is remembered.

~Prince Harry, 31.08.07

It’s easy to lose the real person in the image, to insist that all is darkness or all is light. Still, 10 years after her tragic death, there are regular reports of “fury” at this or that incident, and the Princess’s memory is used for scoring points. Let it end here. Let this service mark the point at which we let her rest in peace and dwell on her memory with thanksgiving and compassion.

~ Bishop of London, 31.08.07

i think its sad, indeed, when we humans think that our own self protection (and that of our family) necessitates the taking of someone else’s life. why the mutual exclusivity?

i wrote this a few days ago, as an edit to my post on the virginia tech massacre. and now i find myself contemplating this very concept, only from a mystical perspective. mark twain, in his book what is man, writes of the innate need of humans to “… satisfy their consciences and temperaments, regardless of consequences.” simone weil, in her notebooks, applies the concept of eating, consumption, and food to humanity and its relationship with the divine. she attributes to humanity a cannibalistic nature and culture, alluding to the fundamental conflict facing all human souls ~ that we crave union with others, and destroy that which we crave simply by craving it … loving it.

as i drink in these words and allow their sentiment to fully ferment in my brain, i reflect back to the quote of mine which begins this post. and i wonder, perhaps my expectations of humanity seem too lofty? perhaps man simply cannot conceive of survival in any terms other than the violent option of mutual exclusivity? indeed, humans do love anthropophagically. our love manifests itself through this destructive force which we exert upon the Other … desire. desire ~ that destructive energy which signals (or triggers? or both?) imbalance.

can we reign in this destructive energy? can we reign in this internalized, innate really, paradigm of prey/predator … consumed/consumer? by nature, it seems, doing so would provoke a perception of self violence. surely, we would perceive the threat to ego as a direct act of self-destruction. the ego, then, projects this illusory matrix of mutual exclusivity entangled with Self survival: dog-eat-dog, predate-or-you-will-become-prey. so … essentially one must eat oneself ~ empty one’s ego, one’s own selfish will. ahhh, and then we find we cannot ~ our finitude precludes us from performing this self-cannabalism. we must submit our Selves for divine osmosis. put another way ~ we must get past the ego so that g-d may devour us … distill us to our purist form.

weil applies the metaphor of cannibalism to our relationship with the divine – with g-d when she writes of the notion g-d’s hunger to devour us ~ to eat us. essentially weil means spiritual decreation, which she sees as a mystical process involving fusion with the divine, through which the illusory aspect of the Self – the ego – shrivels away from our sacred core, that place which only g-d can fill. the Gita also speaks to this notion of nothing-ness ~ teaches us that when the Self empties the ego, ignorance dies at its root, and clarity of spirit arises, to extinguish the passionate hunger and defiling desire which has enslaved us to the substantial, material, corporeal realm. in fact, to realise oneself ~ to gain awareness of one’s own Self and decreate one’s ego ~ therein lies state of being to which all souls strive in their samsara.

the corporeal plane of existence, with its immutable laws and infallible forces of nature, imprisons the soul. and, essentially, this sounds a lot like what twain says in his writings. but, the sardonic and disillusioned twain fails to go far enough, perhaps? for he stopped short of suggesting possible any escape from the destructive forces ~ passion and desire. did he reflect on this possibility? likely he would consider any such thoughts quite spiritually arrogant ~ for what right does man have to expect any sort of attention or attending from the divine Creator? well, i have no answer, really. just a silly notion that any creative entity gives affection and intimate attention to his or her creations. for such s/he made in his/her own image.

and so, do we humans have free will? how can we, given our enslavement to ego and temperament and all that’s corporeal? distilled to this atomic level of reasoning, it makes corporeal existence seem analogous to the human existence portrayed in the matrix movies, in which machine dominates man. ahhh, but does the notion of free will necessitate the possession of power? perhaps, free will need not take such a concrete identity … perhaps in our limited human way we cannot conceive of the mystical intricacies of spirit, soul, will, and the divine. perhaps, on contemplating the notion of free will we should look to aquinas, who saw free will as far more elusive: “free-will is defined as the faculty of will and reason.” So the term free will denotes free judgement (i.e. cognating), as opposed to any power over one’s own fate, per se.

EDIT: i doubt this post and its ideas end here, so abruptly. however, the spirit has only moved me thus far today … expect this to be continued.

i wonder, as mark twain does, does any other living thing attach so much importance to itself as does the human? what, in our nature, makes us believe so fervently that the creator made it all happen just for us? twain asks his readers, does an apple in a vast orchard think itself most special as does the human? its almost as if we need a purpose. we need something larger than us all to feel anchored. to feel purposeful. cs lewis alluded to this fact in his treatise, mere christianity. lewis believed in humanity’s need to possess the knowledge to attribute the universe either to random existence, or to some organizing power. indeed, he makes perfect sense when he says that any creating power that exists outside the universe can no more make itself known within the confines of said universe than an architect can make himself a wall in a house he’s designed. clever, that analogy.

cs lewis lyrically referred to g-d as the first love of each and every soul. indeed. how lovely, a thought. lewis asserts the notion that one finds truest evidence of g-d’s existence only within oneself. one cannot logically find g-d himself … within the confines of the universe. god’s now resounds for infinity, while our now slips away even as the words tumble from our lips. we cannot begin to comprehend g-d’s nature and the immeasurable blazing immensity of the g-d head. still … one may see a reflection of the g-d head “… flowing through the blue of the sky, the taste of honey, the delicious embrace of water whether cold or hot, and even through sleep itself.”

so, where do we find g-d? i’ve come to feel the eternal nature of this quest. how interesting that i find something … some silver thread of inspiration for the nourishment of my faith, and soul, in two streams of literary knowledge that seem opposed ~ mark twain, the cynical, satirical, and irreverent vs cs lewis, lyrical, atheist-turned-christian: skeptical apologist for believers. i have firmly held, for many years, that to truly gain an understanding of an issue or an entity in this universe, one must know what stands for it, and also what stands opposed to it. and so i see the fruits of such a process. most elucidating. in an intellectual way.

have i answered my question? perhaps, but the answer will take me several lifetimes to decode. and so, i suppose its not at all the answer one wants or expects to receive.

my blogging colleague also spoke of ‘win[ning]’ against pain and suffering. honestly, not being flippant, but, i wonder. how does one win against pain? it seems as likely as conquering death ~ impossible.one makes oneself prisoner when one seeks to escape. one must understand and internalize one’s suffering. however hard this feels for us, who live in a society that feels entitled to an exclusively pleasure-filled existence.

pain, i think, seems necessary. for example, how do we know something requires our attention? ~ because we feel pain. in fact, that we feel pain means we can use this awareness to heal ourselves. if we have no awareness of said wound, as it continues to grow and fester, then … the results will inevitably lead to disaster. i’m thinking here on a physical level, from a clinical perspective … but … i think this can be extrapolated and applied to the non-physical realm.

pain seems like the universe’s way to invoke change … to get us to attend. it seems like a harsh attention-getter, at times. alas, its the only message many of us hear …i suppose a lesson of life, then, involves not eradication of pain and suffering … but what one does with (i.e. how one reacts to) this pain and suffering. and the life path thru which it leads us …

to feel no pain at all ~ this could lead to disaster. think of heroine addicts – when they get so high they no longer feel physical pain … and this can result in some nasty wounds … that also could become gangrenous if unattended. most pain, in a metaphorical sense will lead to some sort of rot, if unattended. or perhaps pain seems more like fire to some ~ mind those burning embers! at any rate ~ you have the right idea – awareness … living involves awareness, when we mostly would rather not have awareness.

and now, somehow, this makes me think of that question from the matrix ~ red pill? or blue pill? society wants us to swallow the blue pill … some, like me, refuse. i will NOT go quietly into the night with that little blue pill. i will go kicking and screaming … i’ll bite, gouge, and spit if i have to … but i will NOT take that blue pill. EVER. EVER.

Another blogger says “scars remind us what we learned in life.” indeed. so … what about scars? they’re the mark of suffering … the signature of pain. by definition, scars can never heal completely. methinks. sure, new ’skin’ grows, replacing what’s been damaged … but the afflicted ’tissue/skin’ never functions the same as it did before. i suppose now we are talking about adapting … to new realities. and development ~ growth ~ real growth of new arteries in the vessel that is the Self.

“Affliction [i.e. suffering] compels us to recognise as real what we do not think possible.”

~simone weil

the fat capitalist pigs and those with the biggest power hard-ons have and continue to build an entire layer of capitalism, based on keeping people scared, based on telling them that terror lies just over that next hill. check out this article, written by naomi klein.

thinking about the current situation in the middle east … dubya’s mythical war on terror …  makes me wonder, just who’s protecting whom? who’s on the offense, if everyone’s on the defense? and how can any serious opponents engage in the game of war, whilst breaking the rules of engagement left, right and centre? methinks war happens because war works for a select few … who happen to matter more than the rest of us, perhaps.

EDIT: the following post i wrote in the fresh, raw wake of the virginia tech massacre, and in response to several newsstories that poured themselves from that stupid, glowing box and into my stream of consciousnes. the pain that choked me as the anguish of the massacre rained upon me, and the stupid things i heard enraged the beast within me and so i wrote this angry rant ~ a sort of kick in the ass for all my american friends in blogger-landia. i physically copied and pasted the comments generated on this post’s original publication in my blogger blog so i could capture the reaction received. i admit i felt disappointed that the culture of destruction and retribution seems so endemic that, on the whole, many seemed resigned to this sort of thing occurring. anyway, comments are closed for this post.

Thursday, April 19, 2007
a kick in the ass (RANT)

the recent shooting @ virginia tech have me wondering about guns. specifically, american gun culture. and … what purpose it serves IN THE HERE & NOW. I don’t really give a shit why the ‘right to bear arms’ exists … or how it became embedded in the constitution. none of that matters to those 33 mothers … fathers … to those 66 sets of grandparents … to all those who remain behind. NOW – that’s what matters. NOW = the history of tomorrow. ARE YOU PLANNING ON MAKING IT? OR BREAKING IT? you like to call yourselves the leaders of the free world. THEN, HOW ‘BOUT Y’ALL FUCKING ACT LIKE IT?

george bush says the time to discuss american gun culture … well he says “its not now.” okay, fuckhead. then WHEN IS THE FUCKING TIME? when exactly can we take our heads out of our damned asses, and SEE REALITY?

why is it the greatest national tragedy when 33 people die in a college shooting … and its ho-hum news when somewhere 183 people die on one day, in baghdad? WTF? what’s wrong here? you see, I’m looking @ this from my perch, NORTH of the 49th parallell. and I say there’s not really any difference. same shit, different pile. human = human. destroy. destroy. destroy. well, what clue do y’all need to see that this strategy ain’t workin’ fer ya? DO WE HAVE TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU?

T-H-E T-I-M-E I-S N-O-W.

N-O-W.

the time IS NOW. its time to face the reality. GUNS KILL. THE END. no exceptions. no excuses. and don’t be a smart-ass by tellin me that trite line ‘guns don’t kill, people do.’ that’s fucking semantics, and you know it! a gun represents a desire to destroy. anyone who owns a gun, does so with that purpose in mind. killing = killing. no exceptions. hunting (i.e. that what we’re calling it when people like to shoot and kill things for sport, read: entertainment). rage killings, it all points to the same need – the need to destroy. WHY? why this culture of destruction?

are you gonna tell me that y’all can put a man on the moon, but youse can’t curb that instinctual drive to kill perceived threats? that’s a lot of BULL, and y’all know it.

THE TIME IS NOW. get the fuck off your asses and DO SOMETHING! the world watches, the world mourns …. and the world IS FUCKING TIRED OF WATCHING YOU DESTROY YOURSELVES and those select parts of the world that piss you off, that you don’t understand, that you perceive a threat. the world does NOT want to see you try to use this latest horrific tragedy to put your shit on someone else’s ass (like – oh the gun man was south korean … like, that’s supposed to make y’all feel better? screw that!) get this straight – YOU – YOU ARE A MOST FORMIDABLE THREAT, with your culture of destruction. and WE. because we just sit here and watch you, watch you, watch you … kill the world. systematically.

WHAT WILL YOU DO ABOUT IT?

that’s all.

wait. no. there’s more.

WAKE UP! do you need to here that song again? do I need to play it for you, once more? tell me. tell me, please. I beg you. am I the only one here, raging against the machine? is everyone else still in their blue pill stupor? did get the only red pill left? or … maybe I really am a mutant and the blue pill does not work on me.

does anyone out there GET IT? I mean, really GET IT?

please … someone tell me they do.

pssst – if this post makes you angry @ its author (moi), then you likely do not GET IT.

I would attach my usual, “not my intention to offend ….” disclaimer, but, today, right now, as I write this …. that’s a lie. I suppose, in a way, its absolutely my intention to offend. coz, if that’s the only way I can get yer attention, and get you thinking, then, as jean-luc picard says, ‘make it so’.

get angry.
get outraged.
and …

put those tears away, unless you’re ready to make sure you don’t have to cry them again. them’s just crocodile tears if ya ain’t willing to get up the courage to change the things you can.

and … oh yeah … STOP WITH THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT BS. what the world needs right now is absolutely a new country video that depicts a song all about school shootings. its NOT TOO SOON. remember – the time is NOW.

and … before you write me some angry rant here in these comments, write that angry rant to anyone who had anything to do with that very disturbed young man – deemed ‘mentally ill’ by a court in virginia – GETTING A SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPON! while we’re at it – here’s a rhetorical question – why does any civilian NEED a glock?

and remember … I’M ON YOUR SIDE. that’s why I’m kicking y’all in the ass with this blog post. don’t forget that!

we have already made sure – thru our shitty-ass lifestyle choices – that our children will not live as long as we will. do we want to make sure that they make it … to middle … or beyond?

THE CHOICE IS YOURS. THE TIME IS NOW.

Posted by the.red.mantissa at 08:10

Labels: angry, gun control, massacre, rant

9 comments:
Infinitesimal said…
sigh

each state makes it’s own laws
(so far)
and
Virginia determines that outpatients like Cho can still legally own and purchase firearms.

even glocks.

yep.

that may change.

by the way, there was another shooting spree today in Texas.

Nobody was hurt.
(I don’t think)

Friday, April 20, 2007 10:09:00 PM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: When someone legally markets a gun that arms itself and actively goes in search of victims, I will agree that we have a gun problem. Until then, we have a people problem. If that were not the case, then Washington DC, with it’s horrendously restrictive gun control laws, would have almost no gun violence. As it is, the situation is horrid. Your advocating treating of a symptom. That can have it’s place, but I don’t think destroying a right is the way to address it.

Oh, and it really isn’t productive to ask “Who needs a (fill in the blank).” There is almost no one in America (and most of the world for that matter) that does not have more of something than they need, whether it is food, money, stuff, etc.

Sufficiently free of PC BS?

Saturday, April 21, 2007 1:31:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
gary -

i ask the questions i ask. its my mind, my blog. please – do not come here judging the ‘productivity’ of a blog post i described ‘rant’ in the title. i suppose i could say what i like to call ‘smart ass’ comments do not seem productive to me – however thats seems pointless.

as far as needing. well, that man who lives in rural south africa needs that uzi stashed under his bed, because he’s going to blow someone’s fucking head off if they walk thru the door unannounced. that’s the environment there. kill get killed. no other choices.

is that the sort of culture americans embrace? kill or get killed? if americans need that glock or if they think owning something with the capacity to produce instant death/maiming is ok … then that answers my question.

you speak of semantics, with your quip of a gun that goes in search of its victims. and … miss my point. the gun SYMBOLIZES the destructive force in the culture. and its one among many symbols of destruction in said culture. however, one that lately, has gotten much screen time.

why is it that other western countries, with no such right (as if its truly a right in any sense, other than some delusional one … IMHO) have such violence and destruction embedded into their culture?

switzerland, a country in which every male between the age of 18 and 45, owns a firearm and knows how to operate same, has among the lowest violent crime rates in the western world. interesting, ain’t it? quite, i think. the difference btw usa and switzerland is that desire to destroy …. either directly, or thru the media … does not exist.

i don’t expect you to get my point of view. in fact, i don’t expect most people. but … i express it anyhow.

Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:12:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
infini – utterly amazing. a mentally ill person, who has expressed homicidal ideation of the mass kind in writing gets a semi automatic weapon. what else … but a mass shooting spree … could be the result of such an event? i mean … honestly? or – maybe i am not supposed to be asking that question?

so — do y’all let pedophiles work in toy stores, too?

yup. i heard about the one in houston, in the nasa complex. shots fired, never heard anything about if there were any casualties.

Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:23:00 PM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM:
Your blog. Your questions. Quite right. Are you saying that you post these because you don’t want comments? I know some people do. If that’s the case, I won’t comment on anything else listed as a “rant.”

Sunday, April 22, 2007 1:58:00 PM PDT
she said…
“ya’ll”?!

grrrherhaha

Sunday, April 22, 2007 5:20:00 PM PDT
the.red.mantissa said…
she … grrrherhaha, indeed

gary – just don’t like the feeling i get when someone comes to my blog to judge me. i think differences in opinion can be expressed without antagonism … is all.

agreeing to disagree … often its the best course of action. believe me, i have learned this the hard way.

regards …

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:14:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: I truly was not trying to be judmental of you, but of the words you expressed. You seem to place a lot of in symbols. I do to an extent, but I would much rather evaluate someone by their words, and your words seemed a challenge to me to everyone who believed that guns played little part in the outcome, or who believed that the presence of students armed for their own protection could have made a positive difference.

You said that you thought this was the time for questions. What do you think would help the situation? Do you believe we should base national gun policy on the actions of a disturbed individual? These are not intended as “smart ass” questions. I really want to know.

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:40:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
words you expressed. You seem to place a lot of in symbols. I do to an extent, but I would much rather evaluate someone by their words, and your words seemed a challenge to me to everyone who believed that guns played little part in the outcome, or who believed that the presence of students armed for their own protection could have made a positive difference.

You said that you thought this was the time for questions. What do you think would help the situation? Do you believe we should base national gun policy on the actions of a disturbed individual? These are not intended as “smart ass” questions. I really want to know.

Monday, April 23, 2007 9:40:00 AM PDT
Gary Baker said…
RM: In the spirit of fairness, I don’t think you should complain out being judged when your blog features lines like:

“GUNS KILL. THE END. no exceptions. no excuses. and don’t be a smart-ass by tellin me that trite line ‘guns don’t kill, people do.’ that’s fucking semantics, and you know it! a gun represents a desire to destroy. anyone who owns a gun, does so with that purpose in mind. killing = killing.”

A more judgemental line would be very difficult to find. For some people, guns represent memories of family times together. For others, even in America, a gun represents the ability to protect themselves and their familes. The courts have ruled time and time again that we have no “right” to government protection. If that’s the case, then basically it is on each of us to be able to protect themselves, and in some areas of the country that means a gun. (BTW – I don’t own a gun, don’t hunt, am not a member of the NRA. I simply believe in the constitution.)

If you don’t want to feel judged, that’s fine. But when you come out imposing judgements, don’t be offended when others return comments in kind.

** [28.7.07] i did not bother to respond at that point. but now i will just add that i think its sad, indeed, when we humans think that our own self protection (and that of our family) necessitates the taking of someone else’s life. why the mutual exclusivity? has life in america suddenly become a game of chicken ~ a string of mutual exclusivities?

IF NO ONE HAD A GUN, THEN NO ONE WOULD NEED A GUN AS PROTECTION, WOULD THEY? WHAT A NOVEL THOUGHT!

~on the surface~
veil of fear … i watched a documentary of this title … and, honestly? not sure what to think. on the surface, sure, the issue of this veil controversy seems simple. but … dig deeper. if you’re a canadian – then, it ain’t so simple. a canadian will think mosaic, not melting pot. do we have a right to dictate the dress of civilians in our society? why do we? what about freedom of religion? freedom of expression? does dress constitute expression? does a veil – really known as a niqab – pose any threat? or intimation of violence? ie – as in the black trenchcoat and t-shirts with violent messages.

so … let’s talk about this niqab. jack straw wants us to believe that a niqab presents a barrier to communication. really? so … i’m guessing jack doesn’t do the teleconference thing? or the email thing? riiiiight …. how does he reconcile all the communicating he doubtless does in the course of his day via telephone, email, memo? i can’t imagine that he refuses to engage in these means of communication on the grounds that they preclude him from observing facial gestures. so … what gives? perhaps an inability, or unwillingness, to assimilate a foreign custom? a sort of hiding behind one’s own veil of fear, in rejecting the validity of niqab? one wonders.

i think of france – where legal restrictions curb religious expression with respect to dress. and i wonder. i understand the sentiment. but – does it go too far? i think of the usa. known as a melting pot. meaning, from a cultural perspective, dilution of cultures of origin by the american culture. i think of canada. what makes canada, canada? does the term mosaic have anything to do with it? i think so.

this portion is newly written – never posted
~the veil~
the veil. ahhh the veil. it beckons me to ask myself of the eroticism of hair. because, really, that’s what lies at the core of the issue, when you peel all the layers away. do you think of hair as erotic? i have to say that i do. having long hair, myself, i have witnessed first hand the subtle eroticism of manipulating said long hair, by, say, untying it (ie letting the hair down).

i feel the subtle perception difference of others if i am wearing a head-scarf, have hair tied, or have hair loose. the manner in which i dress my hair speaks volumes of the erotic message i want to send out. modesty requires some sort of hair restraint. while, letting the hair loose seems to subtly provocative. that’s my personal view on hair. in fact, for the sake of modesty i usually have my hair restrained for much of my everyday life.

so … i can see the logic or reasoning that would lead one to want to wear a veil (tho, understand me, i have not said that i would or do wear one myself). but, what of the full facial covering? perhaps that’s extreme? the waters here seem quite muddied …. i wish i knew.